Lewis Nicholson - Northants England

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friend

BASIS FOR PROPOSED DOCUMENTARY - BBC PANORAMA

There have been many debates recently in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords and also a proposed BILL aiming to give protection to the public from dishonest and corrupt Solicitors. The Law Society was formed some 200 years ago which should have given plenty of time and opportunity to put regulations in place to protect Solicitors’ clients. There is even a rule book entitled - Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors. These rules are observed by some members of the legal profession more in the breach than the observance. Those Solicitors regard a Practising Certificate as a means to commit legalised theft, and because of the failure of the Law Society to punish dishonest Solicitors, they consider themselves Jesus Christ and can walk on water.

The Law Society set up the:- Solicitors Complaints Bureau (SCB); Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) ; Consumer Complaints Service (CCS); and latterly the Legal Complaints Service( LCS).. These organisations have one common thread: They have all failed to protect the public from corrupt and dishonest Solicitors. Now there is a new Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA). It appears that whenever government announces that the Law Society is in the “Last Chance Saloon” because of its failure to deal with the increasing number of complaints against Solicitors, the Law Society merely changes the name of its regulatory body.

The Law Society’s Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s Annual Report up to April 2007 reveals that only 67 Solicitors were struck off the Solicitors Roll from the thousands of complaints received by the LCS. There are various organisations now established in an attempt to expose dishonest Solicitors. Some of these organisations have had their websites interfered with.

The latest scandal to hit the legal profession is the increasing number of Solicitors’ clients who are having their homes possessed and declared bankrupt, because of their refusal to pay exorbitant and disputed legal fees.

Court processes are being manipulated for the benefit of these dishonest Solicitors by means of the Insolvency and Enterprise Act which does not protect clients who are solvent but have been made bankrupt; preventing the client who is bankrupted by the Solicitor because they are not allowed to take anyone, including their Solicitor to court. This means they are unable to challenge the Solicitor’s bill in a court, which is a fundamental denial of human rights: apart from the fact that a bankrupt cannot apply or receive legal aid. Many are described by judges as vexatious litigants.

A demonstration held outside the Royal Courts of Justice and the Law Society on 22nd October 2007, in protest at Solicitors generating bankruptcy petitions against clients was well supported by the general public and attended by Dr.Vincent Cable the Deputy Lib.Dem Leader. Yet the media showed no interest in reporting the demonstration, even though a petition was handed in to 10 Downing Street voicing concern at the failure of the Law Society’s regulatory systems.

Among the many protesters that took part in the demonstration was 74 year old former Stevenage businessman Lewis Nicholson. Mr.Nicholson has waited more than 30 years to get his unprecedented lost claim against his former bankers the National Westminster Bank into court, following the disgraceful conduct of two of his former Solicitors who allegedly materially assisted the bank to strike out Nicholson’s claim even though the bank, eight months after receiving Nicholson’s Statement of claim, were unable to file their defence.

Nicholson’s lost claim for substantial damages included the alleged deliberate wrongful dishonour of 287 cheques of Lewis Nicholson Ltd (LNL) over a period of 18 months, together with a proved forged Bank Giro Credit enabling the bank to wrongfully dishonour cheques; allegedly falsifying bank microfilm records; the alleged intentional infliction of financial harm, and alleged malicious attempts to cause Court Warrants of Execution to be issued against LNL. Nicholson’s claim was without precedent in the entire history of British Banking Law.

The attempts at enforcing Warrants of Execution were to ensure the confiscation of Nicholson’s business premises without compensation, built on Stevenage Development Corporation (SDC) land whose officers were accused by Mr.Nicholson of corruption. Hertfordshire Police advised Nicholson in March 1981 that his allegations of corruption had proved to be substantially correct. There were no prosecutions. Hertfordshire Police also failed to prosecute any officer of the NWB. Having taken samples of Nicholson’s handwriting the police failed to confirm that the handwriting on Nicholson’s Bank Giro Credit for £754.23 dated 4th May 1973 was forged. In 1996 Nicholson obtained his own handwriting expert’s report confirming the forgery.

Subsequent to Mr.Nicholson’s allegations of corruption against SDC Estates Department officers; in 1974 the SDC refused to grant Mr.Nicholson his commercial lease, and would only do so if Mr.Nicholson immediately assigned it to others. Instead of advising Nicholson that having completed Specific Performance on the SDC’s Building Agreement, Nicholson could not be refused his Lease. Nicholson’s Solicitor advised that he had no option than to accept the SDC’s onerous terms.

The loss to Nicholson at 1988 values was a building valuation of £250,000 and loss of annual rental income of £25,000 also at 1988 values, on a 42 year ground lease from 1974 at a ground rental of £444.00 per annum reviewed at 21 years. Subsequent government legislation would have given Nicholson the opportunity of obtaining the land freehold.

A leading court case: - Hanks-v- Minister of Housing (1963) 1 All ER 54, ruled that a Public Authority’s “Dominant Purpose” explained its conduct and not the stated purpose of its decision. In Nicholson’s case it would be clear that SDC Officers were taking their “revenge” against Nicholson, by refusing his ground lease because of his public spiritedness in attempting to expose corruption. Such conduct was referred to in Mrs.Ward-Jackson’s addendum to the 1977 Salmon Report into the “Poulson Affair”. One of the leads discovered by Nicholson was that SDC officers were on the periphery of the Poulson Affair.

In: - Asoka Kumar David –v- M.A.M.M Abdul Cader (1963) 3 All ER 579 it was ruled that if the respondent had acted maliciously in refusing a licence, an action might lie. One other leading case of Banque Bruxelles Lambert-v- Eagle Star (1996) 3 WLR 87, forms a basis for the principle that damages should put the victim in the position he would have been in if the wrong had not occurred.

Nicholson later discovered that his Solicitor was a retained Solicitor of the Lombard & Ulster Bank Ltd, part of the NWB bank group. The Solicitors Complaints Bureau (SCB) received a 37 item complaint list from Nicholson in 1981 which the SCB refused to investigate. Eventually Nicholson’s Solicitor received a 4 ½ year prison sentence in April 1993 in connection with various frauds that had no connection with Nicholson, and cost the Law Society’s Compensation Fund in excess of £1.5 million. Bedfordshire Police officers informed Nicholson that they had to raid SCB offices and confiscate files which SCB officers knew contained evidence of fraud.

Folllowing Nicholson’s appearance on ITV’s Anglia News on 14th April 1993, the Independent featured on the front page of its 26th April edition the Law Society’s setting up of “Operation Crackdown” to eradicate once and for all, dishonest Solicitors from the Legal Profession. Judging from later events, “Operation Crackdown” was purely lip service to placate concerned members of the public and never got off the ground.

Nicholson subsequently suffered a plethora of dishonest and negligent Solicitors and Barristers, but the Law Society’s Legal Complaints Service (LCS) and the Bar Standards Board (BSB) refused to take any action, even though evidence submitted by Nicholson was irrefutable and is now under review by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). Six of Nicholson’s last eight Solicitors; were allegedly dishonest and were allegedly attempting to secure the loss of his substantial claims.

The Law Society’s Legal Complaints Service refused to accept evidence of a former Solicitor’s admitted dishonesty of a serious breach of Regulation 64 of the Legal Aid Act. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s annual survey up to April 2007 shows that a breach of Legal Aid Regulations is a disciplinary offence. Two other Solicitors were recently subject to complaint to the LCS, following their attempts to leave Nicholson to his own devices during important stages of litigation; and the refusal to accept instructions and report the conduct of other Solicitors to the Law Society as required by Solicitors rules.

Two Barristers were reported to the Bar Standards Board for attempting to pressurize Nicholson to drop his claim. One Barrister went so far as to instruct Nicholson’s Solicitor to approach the Defendant’s Solicitors to notify them that Nicholson wished to discontinue his claim. The Solicitor acted on the Barristers instructions without Nicholson’s authority or even knowledge, and came back with an offer that if Nicholson dropped his claim, the Defendant’s costs at that time of £17,000 would be waived.

Both Barristers refused to accept Nicholson’s instructions to amend his Particulars of Claim to include alleged fraudulent deception, when at least nine counts of alleged fraud were revealed in disclosures received from the Defendants. One Barrister claimed that he would be “professionally embarrassed” to act on Nicholson’s instructions, even though Lord Denning said in: - Lazarus Estates-v- Beasley (1956) 1QB 702; that where fraud is provable, fraud has to be pleaded.

One other Barrister was confirmed as receiving £2.000 from the Legal Aid Fund in 1998 after Nicholson alleged that the Barrister did very little work for the fee claimed and a conference aborted due to his incompetence. The Chief Clerk of Chambers confirmed to Nicholson in Chambers that if Nicholson did not complain to the Bar Council there would be no fee. This is now denied. The Bar Standards Board took no disciplinary action even though Nicholson’s complaint was documented. This matter was reported to the SFO as alleged theft of public monies.

Although notified by Nicholson, The Legal Services Commission (LSC) responsible for Legal Aid, failed to call for Nicholson’s evidence in order to reclaim the £2,000 of public funds. The LSC refused to confirm to Nicholson that the Barrister had received £2,000 form the Legal Aid Fund, which was confirmed by an entry on the initial bill of costs received by Nicholson in 2006

Following the refusal of Nicholson’s Solicitors on 30th March 2007 to take any steps to protect Nicholson’s interest when further evidence of alleged fraud was disclosed to them on 8th February 2007 by the Defendant’s Solicitors and withheld from Nicholson. He had no option than to act in person and seek an adjournment for the 17th April trial date in order to instruct new Solicitors. On 12th April 2007 a High Court Judge refused Nicholson’s application in person for an adjournment to amend (a) his Particulars of Claim to include evidence of fraudulent deception. (b) Nicholson should be given time to instruct fresh Solicitors. A High Court Master had previously advised Nicholson that his claim was far too complex for him to act in person.

The judge claimed that it was “imperative” that the trial should go ahead on 17th April rather than Nicholson should be allowed his adjournment to seek and instruct fresh Solicitors in the “interests of justice”. The judge improperly decided that because Nicholson could draft legally worded witness statements, he was competent enough to act in person. This left Nicholson only three days to read through over 7000 documents for a four day trial due to commence on 17th April 2007, including the preparation of cross-examination of four defence witnesses. Nicholson’s complaint to the Department of Constitutional Affairs regarding the alleged conduct of the judge of misfeasance in public office met with no response.

Fortunately for Mr.Nicholson he experienced divine intervention on the evening of 16th April when he was admitted to the Acute Care Unit of London’s Homerton Hospital suffering from acute stress and other complications including pneumonia and detained for ten days. Nicholson later discovered that no competent Barrister could have prepared Nicholson’s claim in the time allocated to Nicholson by the judge.

It is not too difficult to reach a conclusion that if Nicholson had acted in person on 17th April 2007 he would have been totally unprepared, with insufficient skills, and would have lost his claim, together with substantial costs. He very probably would have been declared bankrupt and prevented from proceeding further by being described as a vexatious litigant.

Nicholson’s claim, struck out for non-attendance at trial on 17th April, even though the court were aware before the trial commenced at 10.30am that Nicholson was in hospital, is now back on track following Nicholson’s successful application with new Solicitors, to restore his claim on 27th July 2007. The £50,000 interim costs order lodged against his house is now removed.

Mr.Justice Reddihough confirmed on 27th July 2007, following Nicholson’s application to restore his claim, that Nicholson had a “real” and not a “fanciful” prospect of success at trial and should have received substantially more in damages than reflected in the alleged fraudulent Tomlin Order. A new trial is now due to commence in April 2008. The Judge remarked that any future Judge would undoubtedly consider the conduct of the bank by awarding substantial damages for serous breaches by Nicholson’s bank manager, of his undertaking given to Nicholson’s Solicitors in 1974 not to wrongfully dishonour cheques.

The judge also referred to the considerable number (85) of low value cheques wrongfully dishonoured which severely impugned LNL’s creditworthiness at the material time and caused LNL to cease trading. Following legal precedent Nicholson has calculated damages in relation to the 85 low value wrongfully dishonoured cheques in excess of £100,000 with a further 202 cheques remaining for a judicial decision on damages.

The circumstances surrounding a mediation held on 25th August 1999 will also be under scrutiny by the court following the Judge’s expression of surprise on 27th July 2007 that Nicholson was not a party to an alleged settlement in the form of a Tomlin Order. Nicholson was barred from the mediation negotiations and was suffering from serious depression. The Tomlin Order was signed and sealed by his Solicitor without Nicholson’s knowledge or authority, providing Nicholson with an interest inclusive settlement of £105,000 having previously advised SIF that all offers should “exclude interest”.

Nicholson’s Solicitor’s handwritten mediation contemporaneous note initially referred to an offer of £75,000 “including interest”. On the judge’s interest calculations of 5.932, the capital element of this offer was only £12,643. The £105,000 offer was referred to in the Solicitor’s mediation contemporaneous note as £105,000 “inclusive costs indemnity”. The first witness statement of his former Solicitor referred to the £105,000 offer as: - “£105,000 inclusive,” plus” costs indemnity”. The recent report on the John Charles de Menezes shooting, confirms that one altered word can change a report out of all context.

The unauthorised and allegedly fraudulent settlement provided a capital sum of less than £18,000 including over £5,000 of residuary claims, was less than SIF’s initial offer of £25,000. From the mediation contemporaneous notes drafted by SIF’s Solicitors and his own Solicitor obtained by Nicholson; his mediation skeleton argument of £2, million fully supported by his Solicitor, was not discussed at mediation by either SIF’s Solicitors; his Solicitor or the two mediators.
Nicholson’s Solicitor had previously rejected SIF’s offer of £25,000 in 1998 for Nicholson’s entire claim and had calculated in excess of £54,000 including interest for Nicholson’s residuary claims alone.

The Tomlin Order was couched in terms that upon Nicholson accepting SIF’s terms, (£ 105,000) SIF would not enforce four costs orders against Nicholson, for admitted delays caused by the negligence of his former Solicitor. Nicholson regarded these terms as tantamount to alleged blackmail. These four costs orders were unenforceable due to the admitted negligence of SIF’s indemnified Solicitor. Nicholson’s Solicitor advised him just prior to mediation that he did not have to accept offers made by SIF, but if he did not accept SIF’s offer she was no longer prepared to accept instructions.

Nicholson is clear that his refusal to accept SIF’s offer would result in yet another attempt to secure the discharge of his Legal Aid Certificate, leaving the door open for SIF to pursue payment of the four costs orders which would undoubtedly have led to Nicholson being declared bankrupt and unable to pursue his substantial claims. If Nicholson was not suffering from a reduced mental capacity, SIF could have alleged that he had rejected a capital offer of £105,000 which would have increased to £622,860 with interest at 5.932 of the capital sum.

Due to the previous admission of negligence by SIF’s indemnified client Solicitor, these four costs orders against Nicholson were unenforceable by SIF. Nicholson’s former Solicitor repeatedly failed to act on instructions that SIF should provide an indemnity against these costs orders which should never have been awarded by the court against Nicholson. Nicholson’s Solicitor refused to act on his repeated instructions prior to mediation to obtain an indemnity for the four costs orders.

The Defendants claim that Nicholson witnessed the signing of the Tomlin Order and agreed to its terms: Nicholson’s evidence is that he was not aware that a settlement had been reached at mediation and certainly not by a Tomlin Order. An unsealed copy of the Tomlin Order was not received by Nicholson until 1st September 1999. He immediately applied to the High Court to stop the Tomlin Order from being sealed, not knowing that the Tomlin Order had been sealed on 31st August 1999.
On 27th July 2007 the Judge commented that he was surprised that Nicholson was not requested to sign the Tomlin Order at mediation and if he had agreed to its terms, why would Nicholson attempt to stop the sealing of the Tomlin Order?

Previously; Nicholson’s former Solicitor had rejected a capital offer to settle at £25,000. It is known that up to the date of the mediation, Nicholson’s Solicitors were in serious financial difficulties and subsequently a serious conflict of interest arose. Nicholson’s Solicitor had dishonestly obtained £2303.23 mediation costs from Nicholson who was of “nil contribution” legal aid status. Although SIF paid costs in December 1999 and February 2001, Nicholson did not receive repayment of the mediation fees until 2005, and then only after instructing Solicitors to obtain recovery. Nicholson discovered in 2005 that the Legal Services Commission had offered a grant of £1250 to his Solicitor towards the mediation costs which was not taken up, adding further suspicions on his Solicitor’s conduct.

Nicholson’s Solicitor, who regarded him as a friend, also obtained a loan of £12,500 from a relative of Nicholson on the mediation day. No agreement was drawn up and payment was only received in 2005 after Solicitors were instructed. The loan was provided to demonstrate a substantial conflict of interest. A High Court Master in 2006 directed the Defendant Solicitor to repay Nicholson his substantial legal costs in recovering the monies owed.

Nicholson’s Solicitor having committed a serious breach of Rule 64 of the Legal Aid Act, was regarded as of no consequence by the Legal Complaints Service (LCS). The LCS failure to take any disciplinary proceedings; including LCS knowledge that Nicholson had provided evidence of the alleged uttering of false documents with intent to deceive within the Defendant’s High Court Bundle, is now being investigated by the Legal Services Ombudsman. Nicholson’s immediate former Solicitors refused to act on Nicholson’s instructions and report these facts to the LCS.

SIF’s £25,000 offer was the subject of an earlier failed attempt in 1996 by another of Nicholson’s former Solicitors and Barrister, to secure the discharge of Nicholson’s Legal Aid Certificate for unreasonably refusing to accept SIF’s offer, put to Nicholson as including interest but put to the Legal Services Commission as “excluding interest”.

Nicholson’s Barrister originally confirmed that Nicholson’s claim was without precedent and that each cheque wrongfully dishonoured created its own damages. By October 1996 the Barrister had a change of opinion and quantified Nicholson’s claim as less than £4000. If he did not accept SIF’s £25,000 offer, recommendation would be made to the Law Society to discharge Nicholson’s Legal Aid Certificate. That attempt proved unsuccessful. Nicholson is clear that SIF’s Solicitors were the alleged”prime mover” in attempts to compromise Nicholson’s substantial claim.

Nicholson’s Solicitors and Solicitors acting for the Solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF) confirmed to the mediation firm, Centre for Dispute Resolution (CEDR) that negotiations would be held within the parameters of £200,000 and £500,000 excluding interest, reflected in CEDR’s scale fee of £1250. Interest was calculated by a High Court Judge on 27th July 2007 to be a factor of 5.932 of any capital sum. Therefore any capital sum within these financial parameters plus interest would exceed £1 million. The Solicitors’ agreement to these financial parameters was not divulged to Nicholson. The circumstances surrounding the mediation offers are as follows:

30/03/99 SIF’s offer to negotiate between £25,000-£100,000
interest exclusive.

28/04/99 SIF’s offer to negotiate as above but offers of £100,000 plus, exclusive of interest.

21/05/99 Nicholson’s Solicitor advises LSC that claim worth at least £200,000

12/08/99 Nicholson’s Solicitor provides £2, million skeleton argument properly quantified.

17/08/99 SIF and Nicholson’s Solicitor agree to negotiate between £200,000 and £500,000 excluding interest

Through his then Member of Parliament Mr.Paul Stinchcombe in May 2000, Nicholson was contacted by the Metropolitan Police Fraud Squad (SO6) who issued a crime number(SO6/00/4212) and operational code name (Operation Torquay) for their investigation. Nicholson’s input into the SO6 investigation was a 300 page dossier and 750 pages of exhibits, now requiring considerable updating and will be the basis of Nicholson’s proposed book entitled “The Torquay Memorandum”

In the meantime Nicholson himself obtained sufficient evidence to provide proof of his allegations of a conspiracy to defraud, allegedly involving his former Solicitors; Solicitors who were acting for SIF; SIF and two mediators. Nicholson’s Solicitors made an alleged fraudulent application for costs to SIF amounting to £166, 429, 23, for the fees of the three Solicitors involved with the case since 1992, compared to Nicholson’s Legal Aid Certificate limitation of only £10,000. These costs were not disclosed to Nicholson until June 2006. Even a senior Partner of the law firm representing SIF confirmed to Nicholson in October 2005 that SIF had been the victim of an alleged costs fraud.

Following Nicholson’s analysis of the Bill of Costs, including a claim for £106,000 by the Solicitor Nicholson is currently suing: Nicholson acting as his own caseworker had prepared 90-95% of the work claimed for in the bill of costs, and estimated that his Solicitor’s actual costs were no more than £3000-£5,000. Out of 90 costs claims, Nicholson identified 70 claims as allegedly fraudulent. In August 2006 SCD6 (SO6) invited SIF to make an allegation of a crime against Nicholson’s former Solicitors. SIF failed to respond. SCD6 took no further action.

Nicholson thereafter alleged to SCD6 that SIF’s officers were allegedly implicated in his allegations of a conspiracy to defraud, by allegedly making a corrupt payment to Nicholson’s former Solicitor for her alleged conduct in reducing SIF’s substantial financial responsibilities under the terms of an Order 14 judgement against SIF’s indemnified Solicitor obtained by Nicholson in August 1994. Nicholson has found no evidence that SO6 had covered the same investigative ground as Nicholson, otherwise SO6 would have required Nicholson’s advice and input into their evidence discovery.

During a brief period of some five weeks in 1998 with a previous law firm including her return to Nigeria; Nicholson’s Solicitor copied four letters received from an outdoor clerk who was acting as caseworker from her home in Stevenage and held Nicholson’s vast collection of documents. Nicholson’s Solicitor wrote one further letter to the Legal Services Commission and placed herself on the record at the High Court. The Bill of Costs to SIF for this very brief period of instruction was for £31,500 including a 100% mark up

One of a number of documents obtained by Nicholson in support of his allegations of a conspiracy to defraud which the LSC refused to accept, was a letter dated 28th September 1999 from SIF’s Solicitors to Nicholson’s Solicitor, no doubt in an attempt to ensure that they would both “sing from the same ”hymn sheet”.

This letter stated that Nicholson had witnessed his Solicitor sign the Tomlin Order at mediation in the presence of SIF’s Solicitors and the two mediators. The two separate Mediation Contemporaneous Attendance Notes do not confirm this statement, and the two mediators have also refused to confirm the content of SIF’s Solicitors’ letter. His Honour Judge Reddihough noted that the Defendant Solicitors were not calling the two mediators to give evidence on their behalf.

Further evidence was obtained on 8th February 2007 by Nicholson’s Solicitors following an exchange of correspondence between Nicholson’s immediate former Solicitor and Solicitors acting For the Solicitor being sued which failed to come into Nicholson’s possession until 27th March 2007

A Telephone Attendance Note (TAN) dated 22/04/99 between SIF’s Solicitors and Nicholson’s Solicitor,( fortunately obtained by Nicholson on 21/12/05 from SIF’s Solicitors,) confirmed that she was not sure if Nicholson would accept the financial parameters proposed by SIF on 30/04/99 to negotiate between £25,000 and £100,000 and that she would seek Nicholson’s instructions and report back.

The TAN confirmed that her letter dictated in response to SIF’s 30/04/99 offer
would be dispatched shortly and that she had only just had a conference with Nicholson.

The 42 minute TAN was the last event of the day on 22/04/99. When pressed for discovery of this dictated letter, the Defendants responded on 8th February 2007 with a copy of a letter dated 26/04/99 claimed to have been the “dictated letter” mentioned in the 22/04/99 TAN, re-dated because of the intrusion of a weekend.

This letter stated that Nicholson “had” accepted SIF’s financial parameters and was “ backed up” by a conference contemporaneous note between Nicholson and his Solicitor dated 22/04/99, also confirming that Nicholson had accepted SIF’s financial parameters.

The only “fly in the ointment” was that Nicholson did not attend a conference with his Solicitor on 22/04/99. If the 26/04/99 and the 22/04/99 alleged Conference Attendance Notes were genuine documents, their content had to follow the TAN conversation that Nicholson “had not” accepted SIF’s financial parameters.

This was the evidence of fraud which was refused by the judge on 12th April 2007 and the claim by Nicholson that the Defendant’s Solicitors were allegedly implicated in the uttering of false documents with intent to deceive.

One plausible explanation for the Legal Complaints Service failing to refer Nicholson’s substantial complaints to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, could be that such a referral would substantially undermine the Solicitor’s defence, providing further proof, if proof were needed; that the Law Society openly supports dishonest Solicitors,

After seven years Nicholson has not received any indication from SCD6 that it has carried out any investigation into Nicholson’s serious allegations. Following Nicholson’s request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, SCD6 have refused Nicholson access to their files, on grounds of public immunity unless in the public interest,

Nicholson has complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office that the public would be bound to be interested in public servants claiming to have carried out an investigation at public expense, when Nicholson discovered no signs of any investigations carried out in relation to the documentation and evidence now in Nicholson’s possession. Nicholson’s allegations have been with the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) since January 2006 whose criteria for investigating alleged fraud, is fraud in excess of £1,million.

On 17th October 2007 Nicholson learned through the Radio 4 “PM” news programme that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) had struck off Solicitor M’s Jane Elizabeth Loveday ( case No: 9439/2006 ) for submitting a fraudulent Bill of Costs. The Complainant was the Law Society. Mr.Nicholson through the Legal Services Ombudsman has accused the LCS of having “double standards”. Mr.Nicholson has also referred a senior LCS official to the Serious Fraud Office, together with members of the Bar Standards Board on grounds of obstructing justice.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s Annual Report to April 2007 ( Pages 7;13 and 14 ) reveals that 67 Solicitors were struck off the Solicitors Roll for:

(a) Grossly misleading clients

(b) Failing to discharge duties honestly and reliably.

Following one Solicitor being struck off the Solicitors Roll, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal described the conduct of one Solicitor as:-

“ The Solicitor had deliberately conducted her practice with dishonesty”.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s analysis of substantiated allegations against Solicitors were:-

(c) Failure to provide costs information

(d) Breach of Solicitors Practice Rules

(e) Breach of duty of good faith

(f) Breach of professional duty

(g) Breach of Legal Aid Regulations

(h) Making false documents

(i) Conflict of Interest

(j) Costs not justified ( overcharging)

Mr. Nicholson alleged to the Legal Complaints Service (LCS) of the Law Society that complaints against his former Solicitor encompass all 10 individual substantiated grounds of complaints against Solicitors upheld by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

Mr. Nicholson is suggesting that members of the public dissatisfied with the conduct of the Legal Complaints Service, should be allowed to address their complaints against Solicitors to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal directly, without fear of costs being awarded against them if a complaint does not succeed and that more lay members of the public should be part of a totally independent body regulating the conduct of Solicitors.

It is believed there are 185 Members of Parliament in an all parliamentary party group supporting the aims of CASIA and SAFE et al. which could lead to a House of Commons debate on the failure of the Regulatory Authorities to stamp out once and for all, dishonesty in the legal profession. Dr.Cable in a recent exchange of correspondence with Nicholson, described his experiences as “appalling”. Nicholson is also a member of the Consumers Association. One senior official also expressed
“astonishment” at Nicholson’s legal experiences, following Nicholson’s attempt to get WHICH to feature Nicholson’s legal problems as a cause celebre.

At the present time Nicholson is a Defendant in a County Court action brought by his immediate former Solicitors for costs in excess of £9,000.including Barrister’s costs of £4,000. Nicholson’s defence is that these costs are not owed due to negligence; incompetence and double charging. His Solicitors confirmed that Barrister’s fees of £4000 would not be paid without Nicholson’s authorisation which was not given.

Nicholson has submitted a counterclaim in the region of £17,000 for costs incurred by him in restoring his claim for trial.

Lewis Nicholson
16 Manor Way
Higham Ferrers
Northants
NN10 8BX

Tel: 01933 413558
Mobile 07941 291355
e mail: lewnic @ waitrose.com

Director of CASIA (Campaign Against Solicitors for Independent Adjudication) member of SAFE (Struggle Against Financial Exploitation- headed by Lord Ahmed)

Other organisations with the same aims of CASIA and SAFE are:-

SACL (Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers )
SACL @ hotmail.co.uk
www.scal.info

UnjustiS ( www.unjustis.co.uk)

STAND YOUR GROUND.CO.UK (primarily a Welsh Organisation against crooked lawyers).
( Web address may well be all lower case.)

SAFE- www.safe-online.org

See also the Cornish Free Press issue 3 August 2007 re: complainant David Law

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o

Comments

Requesting Compliance With The Rule of Law

This is just to let you know that I put on my website a link from Mr. Nicholson's picture to this article.

We are trying 'group cases' so that, collectively and jointly, we can not only help each other but also make a difference in the Establishment.

"We", that is an unfunded network of individuals who've been coming together as the "Forum for Stable Currencies" in the House of Lords and Commons since 1998. See - (links back to http://loveforlife.com.au/node/2469 - Lewis Nicholson - Northants England Article)

Happy Clicking on: Get Out Of Debt Free - Enforcement Of Bank Of England Act 1694 - Early Day Motion 1297 Tabled By Austin Mitchell MP 20th April 2009 !

Judge at Centre of Perjured Evidence Scandal - SKELETON ARGUMENT

Queen’s Bench Ref: HQO50247 : Court of Appeal Ref:A2/2008/2058: European court ref: 43496/09

SKELETON ARGUMENT/CASE HISTORY

Judge at Centre of Perjured Evidence Scandal

In what could be the biggest legal scandal since the large scale theft by Solicitors from coal miners’ compensation payments; a High Court Judge and four other judges are at the centre of an alleged perjured witness evidence and fraud scandal, following a judgement handed down on 4th June 2008 in favour of a Solicitor defendant who admitted dishonesty in court.

The trial Judge; The Honourable Justice Saunders, allegedly showed sufficient bias towards the 2nd Defendant Mrs.P.E.Knox and her witnesses to cause the claimant seventy five year old Lewis Nicholson of Northamptonshire, to complain to the Secretary of State for Justice and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), that the judge had committed misfeasance in public office, tantamount to the obstruction of justice.

Two pre trial judges also allegedly prevented Nicholson from having a fair trial, together with two post trial judges who refused Nicholson’s application for Leave to Appeal, when his evidence of fraud against the defendants was indisputable.

The trial judge refused to permit Nicholson from making a total of 22 allegations of: Fraud; false accounting; substantial dishonesty and perjury against the 2nd defendant, thus failing to ensure that Nicholson had a fair trial. In addition; Nicholson’s Barrister failed with the approval of the judge, to commence court proceedings with his evidence in chief. Both grounds breached Nicholson’s rights to a fair trial under the provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights Act (1998). Two pre trial judges and two post trial judges were also in breach of Article.6, preventing Nicholson from receiving a fair trial and Leave to Appeal.

The only count of dishonesty disclosed at the trial held between 2nd and 9th April 2008, centred on the Defendant’s need for Mr.Nicholson to fund the entire mediation fee of £2203.13 only days before the mediation was due to commence on 25th August 1999 because of insufficient funds in the firm’s office account. This fact alone should have been sufficient to raise doubts on the honesty and integrity of the 2nd defendant.
The Defendants failed to inform Mr.Nicholson who was of “nil contribution” legal aid status; that The Legal Services Commission (LSC) had approved a grant of £1250 towards mediation costs in June 1999. The LSC refuse to confirm if the grant of £1250 was taken up.

Mr. Nicholson’s payment of the mediation fee was a breach of Regulation 64 of the Legal Aid Act, regarded by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) as a disciplinary offence, which was not reported by the Law Society’s Legal Complaints Service (LCS) to the SDT. The LCS considered this misconduct merely an “error of judgement” and not reportable to the SDT.

Mr.Nicholson had sued a former Solicitor who had admitted negligence leading to an Order 14 judgement by consent with costs on 23rd August 1994. According to the present Defendant’s costs claim to the Solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF), the mediation fee was paid by the Defendants on 25th August 1999: However the trial documents show that the mediation firm were pressing for payment of the mediation fee three months after the mediation date, after Mrs.Knox had submitted her costs to SIF, but not disclosed by Nicholson’s barrister to the judge in court. It would be logical to conclude that the 2nd Defendant allegedly dishonestly misappropriated Mr. Nicholson’s mediation fee payment, regarded by the SDT as a striking off offence.

The 2nd Defendant, who regarded Mr.Nicholson as a friend, was so cash-strapped that she obtained a loan of £12,500 from a relative of Mr.Nicholson on the mediation day: Authorised by Nicholson in order to obtain evidence of a serious conflict of interest, when he became aware at the mediation that she was taking instructions from SIF’s Solicitor. She had requested the loan in December 1998 but declined because she considered it unethical to borrow from a client or a client’s relative.

The 2nd defendant did not draw up a loan agreement to protect the interests of the lender. Neither the £12,500 loan nor the £2203.13 mediation fee was repaid until Mr.Nicholson instructed Solicitors in June 2005. A High Court Master on learning that it had cost £1022 in legal fees to recover the debt, ordered the 2nd defendant to repay Nicholson’s entire legal costs

Mrs.Knox under oath in court claimed that she had no idea of Mr.Nicholson’s whereabouts since the mediation on 25/08/99 in order to repay the loans. Mr.Nicholson produced evidence that the Legal Services Commission (LSC) had advised Mrs. Knox on 5th August 2002 of his new address. Mrs.Knox failed to advise the LSC or the court that mediation had taken place on 25/08/99. Yet another pointer for the judge!

It appears from an exchange of correspondence between the LSC and Palmers dated 14/02/03, Nicholson’s first Solicitor, that £9000 in payments on account was still outstanding to the LSC, even though Knox Ukiwa had received a total of £92,200 in costs from SIF in two tranches in December 1999 and February 2001. The LSC refuse to confirm if, or when this £9000 was repaid to the LSC . Nicholson considers that the alleged modus operandi was to allegedly delay payment of Barristers and other Solicitor’s fees by relying on the non discharge of Nicholson’s Legal Aid Certificate. Page 2925 of the court bundle is a letter from the Legal Services Commission to Nicholson’s first Solicitors Palmers dated 14/02/03 appears to support Nicholson’s views as follows:-

“T hank you for your letter dated 03/02/03 to
which I reply. I confirm the above (legal aid)
certificate was discharged on 05/08/02 and a bill
is currently awaited. You may chase your successor
on this matter as there are in excess of £9000 worth
of payments on account outstanding”

The trial judge should have realised on reading page 2925 that the defendants had delayed repayment to the LSC for over three years. The trial judge failed to consider that the defendant’s serious financial difficulties were likely to have caused a major conflict of interest.

Had Mr.Nicholson been allowed to give his oral evidence in chief, that suspicion would have been turned into fact, leaving no doubt as to the 2nd defendant’s dishonesty. A lay view expressed by Dr.Ged Fisher in the 2008 Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s annual report, confirmed that a senior judge remarked in a case that a solicitor has “to be trusted to the ends of the earth”. A description that hardly describes the 2nd defendant.

The complaints laid against the 2nd Defendant to the Law Society’s Legal Complaints Service, not disclosed in the 4000 page trial bundle by Nicholson’s last two Solicitors, consisted of the following disciplinary grounds listed in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal 2008 annual report:-

(i) Misappropriation of client’s money.

(ii) Failure to pay counsel’s fees.

(iii) Breaches of Solicitors Practice Rules

(iv) Failure to act on client’s instructions

(v) Breaches of duty to the court/ misleading the court by perjured evidence under oath and witness statements

(vi) Breaches of professional duty (failure to disclose)

(vii) Breach of Legal Aid Regulations.

(viii) Uttering false documents with intent to deceive.

(ix) False accounting

(x) Conflict of interest (Defendants in serious financial difficulties)

(xi) Costs not justified (overcharging)

(xii) Failure to discharge professional duties honestly and reliably.

(xiii) Took instructions from Defendant’s Solicitors to the detriment of her client.

(xiv) Failed to stop mediation at its commencement and advise the appellant to seek independent legal advice following a serious conflict of interest.

(xv) The 2nd Defendant grossly misled the appellant

(xvi) Conduct unbefitting a Solicitor

(xvii) That she failed to act in her client’s best interests

(xviiii)That she provided misleading information to other Solicitors

(xix) That she took advantage of the client’s reduced mental capacity for her own financial benefit

(xx) That she placed her client under duress by threatening to come off the record if client did not accept SIF’s settlement proposals at mediation

(xxi) That she breached various undertakings given to Mr. Nicholson to repay his reasonable costs in acting as caseworker including his travel expenses and 50% of the defendant’s charge to SIF for photocopying.

(xxii) Failed to execute a loan agreement for £12,500

Nicholson located two findings of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal applicable to his complaints (i) to (xxi) here before:-

SDT Ref: No: 9682-2007 Re: Mr.J.P.Green

The allegations were:

“That he wrote a letter to his client which was false and misleading thereby compromising or impairing his integritary and both his good repute and that of the Solicitors profession contrary to Rules (a) and (d) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990”.

“It was the Applicant’s case (The Law Society) that these were deliberate and conscious steps which can only be viewed as dishonest”

The findings of the SDT re: Mr.J.P Green are the same as listed at (viii) here before. The difference being that Mr.Green uttered false documents in order to assist his client; whereas the 2nd Respondent allegedly uttered false documents in order to assist SIF’s Solicitors control the mediation.

SIF’s Solicitors control of the mediation is confirmed by an exchange of correspondence between them and CEDR the mediation firm where it was confirmed that mediation allowed SIF’s Solicitors to control the outcome of the mediation. Hardly the function of mediation!

The second SDT finding is in respect of:-

SDT No: 9439-2006 Re: M’s J.E.Loveday

The Law Society’s allegations to the SDT were numbered (a) to (o) and almost exactly the same as Nicholson’s allegations at (i) to (xxi) here before. M’s J.E.Loveday was struck off the Solicitors Roll.

Apart from Mr.Nicholson’s complaint to the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) he also forwarded a complaint to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) who had taken over his serious allegations of dishonesty against the 2nd defendant from the Metropolitan Police Fraud Squad (SCD6) in January 2006, in view of a possible linkage between Nicholson’s allegations and other allegations under review by the SFO.

There were twenty four allegations to the SFO involving:- (a) four Solicitors. (b) Three Barristers. (c) Two mediators. (d) Officers of the Law Society’s Legal Complaints Service. (e) Officers of the Legal Services Ombudsman. (f) Officers of the Solicitors Indemnity Fund and a judge; are implicated in Mr.Nicholson‘s allegations. Nicholson considers he is surrounded by a malevolent ring of legal conspirators attempting to prevent his evidence from being heard. Of twelve Solicitors so far instructed; seven were dishonest; three were negligent; one suffered a Law Society intervention; a sole practitioner had an excessive workload.

The National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) advised Mr.Nicholson in January 2009 that if he could show that he did not have a fair trial the court was in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights Act (1998). Nicholson was not advised by his trial legal team that he would not be allowed to give oral evidence. The judge is under an implicit duty to hear both the Claimant and the defendant’s evidence, and the barristers were also under an implicit duty to present their client’s full evidence to the court. Mr.Nicholson’s substantial oral evidence now in course of preparation, would have given the court considerably more evidence than his 8th but only witness statement placed into the core bundle although 12 witness statements were drafted. Nicholson’s oral evidence would have put his claim beyond any doubt.

Nicholson’s Solicitors obtained proof that the 2nd defendant had uttered false documents with intent to deceive on 8th February 2007 following an evidence enquiry to the defendant’s Solicitors after the trial document bundle was agreed. His Solicitors either failed to realise its crucial importance to Nicholson’s allegations of fraud; or realised that this new evidence obtained from the 2nd Defendant’s Solicitors, would sink any defence that the 2nd defendant had to offer. They failed to disclose this evidence to him until 28th March 2007 instead of seeking his urgent instructions on 8th February 2007,and refused to amend the pleadings to include this damming evidence and adjourn the trial fixed for 17th April 2007.

The 8th February 2007 letter provided the proof needed that Mrs. Knox had allegedly falsified two attendance notes with Nicholson dated 22nd and 29th of April 1999, and a letter to SIF’s Solicitors dated 26th April 1999; confirming that Mr.Nicholson had accepted the very restricted financial parameters proposed by SIF’s Solicitors for mediation.

A telephone Attendance Note (TAN) dated 22/04/99 between Mrs. Knox and SIF’s Solicitors: Confirmed that she had recently met with Mr.Nicholson and had dictated a letter not yet typed, in response to SIF’s proposed financial parameters of 30th March 1999 expressed as capital sums. She did not think that Mr.Nicholson would accept the parameters and whether interest was included. She would seek his instructions.

Mrs.Knox stated in the TAN that she had “recently met with Mr.Nicholson” ,not that she:- had met Mr.Nicholson earlier that day (22/04/99) Subsequently the 2nd defendant did not request Mr.Nicholson to give any instructions either orally or in writing. The “dictated letter” mentioned in the 22/04/99 TAN was not disclosed in the trial bundle by Mrs. Knox, A copy of the TAN was obtained by Nicholson from SIF’s Solicitors on 19th December 2005,but there was no corresponding copy of the TAN disclosed in the trial bundle by the defendants. A brief TAN dated 23/04/99 bore no relationship with the previous date’s TAN.

The 22/04/99 Attendance Note of a meeting with Mr. Nicholson alleged by the 2nd defendant to have taken place that day claiming that he had accepted the restricted financial parameters, was fraudulent because there was no meeting on the date claimed. The entry of this meeting in the 2nd defendant’s costs claim was also fraudulent. If there was a meeting, its contents also had to tally with the contents of the later Brookes/Knox TAN that Nicholson would not accept the financial parameters.

The 8th February letter from the defendant’s Solicitors confirmed that the 26th April 1999 letter was in fact the “dictated letter” referred to in the TAN, whose date was altered to 26/04/99 because of the intrusion of a weekend. This letter confirmed that Nicholson had accepted the restricted parameters, in complete contradiction to the later TAN where Mrs. Knox stated that he had not accepted these parameters. Nicholson is satisfied that the already dictated letter mentioned in the 22/04/99 TAN was destroyed and replaced by the 26/04/99 letter.

The contents of the 8th February 2007 letter should have also given Nicholson’s Solicitors clues and cause for concern:-

“The documentary record within our clients’ files
includes the manuscript attendance note of 22/04/99
(doc225) “client agrees that the parameters for
negotiation shall be between £25K - £100K without
interest. The settlement made at £105,000 inclusive of
interest …….was consistent with this…with costs to be
paid in addition”.

The alleged settlement made at £105,000 inclusive of interest, was not consistent with £25K-£100K without interest. Interest was finally calculated as £517,800. The reference to “with costs to be paid in addition” was a red herring. Under the provisions of Nicholson’s Order 14 judgement obtained in 1994, SIF were responsible for Nicholson’s costs in any event.

There is documentation concerning a meeting held on 16/04/99, when Mrs.Knox advised Nicholson not to accept SIF’s financial parameters. There is no attendance note for this meeting, and no record in the bill of costs. The only other meeting arranged was for 29/04/99 to enable Nicholson to prepare his own quantum parameters, which if superior to SIF’s parameters his Solicitor stated, would form the basis for mediation.

The attendance note for the 29/04/99 meeting also falsely confirmed that Nicholson had accepted the financial parameters of between £25,000 and £100,000 proposed by SIF’s Solicitors, in complete contradiction to the entire content of that contemporaneous note. Neither the 22/04/99 nor the 29/04/99 attendance note, nor the 26/04/99 Knox/Brookes letter were disclosed to Nicholson at the material time.

On 12th August 1999 the 2nd defendant fully approved and submitted Nicholson’s £2, million claim for mediation without a murmur of protest from SIF’s Solicitors. Although aware of Nicholson’s £2 million claim, the mediators expressed satisfaction at the commencement of mediation that Nicholson had accepted SIF’s restricted financial parameters which he denied. The mediators should have abandoned the mediation when the second defendant failed to disclose Nicholson’s written acceptance. It was a requirement of mediation rules that the mediators received copies of Nicholson’s written acceptance of SIF’s Solicitors proposals prior tomediation. Had Mr. Nicholson been afforded the opportunity of oral evidence in chief, this deceit would have been exposed.

The uttering of false documents with intent to deceive is proved beyond any doubt. The judge relied on these fraudulent documents to find in favour of the defendants, yet failed to enquire where Mr. Nicholson’s written confirmation of his acceptance of the mediation financial parameters was. The judge must have been aware that Nicholson’s written acceptance was a pre- requisite for mediation to take place.

Two Solicitors and two Barristers who refused Mr.Nicholson’s instructions to alter the pleadings to include this vital evidence were referred to the SFO for obstructing justice. .

On 12th April 2007 Mr.Justice Hodge refused Nicholson’s application in person to amend the pleadings to plead fraud and grant an adjournment for a trial due to commence five days after the judge’s refusal so that Nicholson could instruct new Solicitors. He did not even have the trial bundle of some 4000 documents.

Mr.Justice Hodge was more concerned that Nicholson’s claim came to trial on 17th April 2007 when it was plainly not ready, than any regard for Nicholson’s late discovery of damaging evidence of the 2nd defendant uttering false documents with intent to deceive, and the ensuing miscarriage of justice that such a serious omission of evidence would cause. There was no stricture levied against Nicholson’s Solicitors, or the defendant’s Solicitors who Nicholson alleged must have known that their client had uttered false documents with intent to mislead the court. Mr.Justice Hodge ordered Nicholson to pay £2,500 costs to the defendants.

Nicholson’s urgent application for Leave to appeal failed.

The Rt.Hon Lord Justice Lloyd reasoned in his refusal to allow Nicholson’s Leave to appeal application on paper, that Nicholson had known about the 2nd Defendant’s alleged dishonesty since early 2006 if not before. The judge was plainly not aware that the Defendants had obtained an order from a High Court Master while Nicholson was acting in person, preventing him from pleading fraud. They then disclosed documents supporting Nicholson’s allegations of substantial fraud, which they considered to be an absolute bar to Nicholson re amending his particulars of claim to include any fraud or alleged perjured witness statements.

This evidence and other evidence discovered by Nicholson was not placed by his Solicitors before Counsel, who claimed he would be “professionally embarrassed” and would not accept Nicholson’s instructions to plead fraud.

Mr. Justice Lloyd made an unusual ruling that Nicholson’s allegation of uttering false documents with intent to deceive was ”bound up” with Nicholson’s previous allegations( made in his 8th witness statement) and could not stand separately. Uttering false documents with intent to deceive is a separate criminal indictment and therefore a separate allegation of fraud.

Nicholson’s third ground for an adjournment in order to instruct new Solicitors was also refused by Mr.Justice Lloyd because Nicholson had lawyers and as a result of his own actions he no longer did. Lord Justice Lloyd commented that his Solicitors recently came off the record because Nicholson wanted them to plead fraud and they would not do so. The Hon Justice Lloyd should have known that failure to act on the client’s reasonable and provable instructions was a disciplinary offence.

Fortunately the “hand of God’s divine intervention” occurred when Mr.Nicholson found himself admitted to hospital the night before the trial date suffering from severe stress, pneumonia and other complications and detained for ten days. It was later confirmed that not even a highly experienced Barrister could have prepared for trial in the time Mr. Justice Hodge expected Nicholson to be ready. In five days Nicholson was expected to read through 4000 trial documents draft his evidence in chief and draft cross examination of three defence witnesses when he did not have a trial bundle. The judge must have known that for Mr.Nicholson to appear in person in those circumstances was suicidal and a miscarriage of justice.

A recent Court Order by the Rt. Hon. Lady Justice Smith granting Nicholson his oral application for Leave to appeal, confirmed that Mr.Nicholson was not permitted by the Hon.Mr.Justice Saunders to raise allegations of the 2nd defendant’s fraud; dishonesty and misconduct at trial, confirming the advice of the NCCL and Nicholson’s complaint of substantial bias towards the 2nd defendant by a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights Act (1998): Yet the judge refused Nicholson’s paper application for leave on obtuse grounds that his claim had no merit, confirming that once again, Nicholson was denied the opportunity of a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR

It should have been clear from the documents before Lady Justice Smith that Nicholson was allegedly defrauded out of interest in excess of £517,860; and defrauded out of punitive damages against the National Westminster Bank for the intentional infliction of financial harm, recognised by Judge Reddihough in his judgement dated 27th July 2007.

Mr. Nicholson had additional grounds for nullifying the Queen’s Bench judgement: Previous case law precedent, particularly: Lazarus Estates –v- Beasley (1956) 1ALL ER 341 confirms that a judgement is rendered invalid if fraud is found to exist but not pleaded: Lord Denning allowed Leave to appeal on grounds that fraud vitiates judgements, contracts and all transactions. In addition: Nicholson discovered that the Tomlin Order which followed the alleged mediation settlement on 25th August 1999 was unlawful.

Mr.Nicholson received a letter dated 30th March 2009 stating that his trial Barrister was not prepared to argue fraud at trial because of the professional code of conduct for Barristers implemented by the Bar Standards Board (BSB). According to the BSB, there is no code of conduct preventing Barristers from pleading fraud; Nicholson was allegedly deliberately misled by his former legal team.

Nicholson’s trial Barrister wrongly claimed that if Nicholson had not accepted SIF’s £105,000 offer including interest, mediation would not have succeeded. He was aware that it was Nicholson’s Solicitor, not SIF’s Solicitors in their mediation contemporaneous notes, who suggested that an offer of £105,000 included interest. He would have been aware that the interest factor was “substantial”. Trial bundle documents between SIF, its Solicitors, their client and The 2nd defendant: made clear at page 22376 ( SIF’s Solicitors/indemnified client) dated 25/06/99 that:-

“Whilst the Claimant has yet to quantify his loss….mediation may be framed …between £25,000 and £100,000 net of interest… Applying the same
interest calculation to £100,000 produces an interest inclusive figure of £218,620,00”.

A Telephone Attendance Note Pinsents/Knox dated 16/06/99 confirms at page 2557 that:-

“She also confirmed her interest calculations would put this claim in the (CEDR) fee bracket of between £200,000 and £500,000 I therefore passed this information on to Jason Reeves(CEDR)”.

These two extracts clearly reveal that SIF’s Solicitors and the 2nd defendant were basing settlement on a capital sum of £100,000 Nicholson’s trial Solicitor also wrongly claimed that Nicholson had no interest in the extortionate claim for costs made to SIF by Mrs.Knox because he was legally aided, in breach of Rule 19.04

Two other Barristers refused to accept Nicholson’s instructions on the same grounds. Nicholson’s evidence of fraud only had to be on grounds of a “balance of probability” for a civil trial, and not on the criminal standard of evidence of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Much of Nicholson’s evidence of fraud is of a criminal standard. The Bar Standards Board refused to uphold Nicholson’s complaints.

In his written judgement Mr justice Saunders confirmed that he was satisfied that Mr.Nicholson was largely responsible (acting as his own case worker) for conduct of his claim since instructing the 2nd defendant from 7th May 1998 until August 1999.

That being the case; the judge ignored evidence contained in Mr.Nicholson’s 8th witness statement, that the 2nd defendant attempted to claim for herself, costs in excess of £106,000 from the Solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF) when Mr.Nicholson’s Legal Aid Certificate had a financial limitation of only £10,000 at the date of the mediation in August 1999, covering the costs of five law firms from 1992 to 1999.

In a letter dated 14/02/03 the Legal Services Commission (LSC) confirmed that Nicholson’s legal aid certificate was discharged on 05/08/02 and that there was in excess of £9000 worth of payments on account still outstanding. Nicholson raised questions with the LSC, if they were aware that SIF paid a total of £92,300 costs in December 1999 and February 2001 to the defendants. Costs paid by the LSC to Solicitors on account should have been repaid by the defendants from December 1999. The LSC refused to confirm payment.

One example of an alleged fraudulent costs claim centred on a very short period of Nicholson instructing the 2nd defendant of some eight weeks duration at the Mitcham based law firm of Ness & Co, from March to late April 1998, including her three week return to Nigeria. No papers were delivered to Mrs. Knox at Ness & Co., who used an outdoor caseworker recommended by Nicholson, and domiciled locally to Nicholson who delivered all his case papers to the caseworker.

During this five week period of accepting instructions Mrs. Knox headed up four letters to SIF’s Solicitors drafted by Nicholson’s caseworker, plus a letter to the court and the Legal Services Commission. No other work was involved apart from a few telephone calls. Mrs. Knox attempted to claim costs of £31,500 from SIF including a 100% mark up.

A charge of £550 plus another 100% mark-up was made for attending counsel’s conference at Ness & Co, when the conference took place at Knox Ukiwa in the presence of Nicholson. Counsel’s fee note was addressed to Knox Ukiwa who failed to respond to Counsel’s repeated requests for payment. Nicholson alleges that Counsel’s fees were unlawfully charged to Ness & Co, in order to allegedly “pad out” an alleged fraudulent costs claim for Ness & Co.

Mrs.Knox also charged for preparing instructions to Counsel which were drafted by Nicholson on or about 12th February at Knox Ukiwa. A 100% mark up charged for instructing Counsel appears to be additional to the overall 100% mark up charged by Mrs.Knox on the total costs claimed to have been incurred at Ness & Co, yet Mrs.Knox stated on oath that Knox Ukiwa became operational on 7th May 1998. Conference with Counsel took place on 4th June 1998. Yet another “pointer for the judge !!

Another glaring example of an alleged fraudulent costs claim centred on Mr.Nicholson’s 34 page witness statement drafted by him and typed on a computer at Knox Ukiwa from Nicholson’s word Processor disc. It is dated 19th June 1998 and signed “V.L.Nicholson”. After the completion; signing and dating of Nicholson’s witness statement, the following fraudulent entries appear in Knox Ukiwa’s Bill of Costs:-

(a) 01/07/98 Prepared witness statement £1000,00

(b) 09/10/98 Prepared Claimant’s Statement £1000,00

(c) 12/10/98 Perusing docs. For preparation of client’s witness statement £1266.67

(d) 20/10/98 Perusing docs for preparation of client’s statement. £1200.00

(e) 21/10/98 preparing client’s witness Statement-continuation from 20/10/98 £1266.67

Total…………………………………£5733.34

(a) and (b) above show that the witness statement was prepared (past tense). Yet (c) –(e) refer to present tense. A Brookes/Knox TAN dated 12/10/98 confirmed that Mrs.Knox departed for Miami on 13/10/98. There was no attempt by Nicholson’s Solicitors to discover if Mrs.Knox was in the UK at the time of the fraudulent charge for item (d) above.

A further undisputed example of a fraudulent costs claim was dated 06/08/99, when a charge of £1200 was made plus 100% mark up, and another 100% mark up at the end of the bill of costs, for preparing Nicholson’s skeleton argument. Drafted by Nicholson but not dated until 12th August 1999 and copied by the 2nd defendant word for word at a probable cost of an hour of a typist’s time. Further evidence for the judge!

Out of 90 costs claims by the 2nd defendant for £106,000 on behalf of Ness & Co., and Knox Ukiwa, Mr.Nicholson identified 70 costs claims as fraudulent. As accepted by Mr.Justice Saunders; Nicholson acting as his own caseworker without any payment, was responsible for 90-95% of the fraudulent costs claimed by the 2nd defendant

SIF’s Cost Draughtsman’s claimed that the defendant’s costs were “exorbitant”, but costs were settled at £63,300 from March 1998 to August 1999. By comparison: SIF’s Solicitor’s costs from 1992 to 1999 was only £35,000 and the combined total of costs paid by SIF to Nicholson’s three other former Solicitors was in the region of £28,000 from 1992 to 1998. A layperson could have spotted the fraud!

Nicholson estimated the defendant’s costs to be in the region of £3000 to £5000, in line with costs claimed from SIF by another of Nicholson’s former Solicitors. Two Solicitors failed to incorporate Mr. Nicholson’s costs analysis, into the trial bundle, and the judge failed to enquire why Nicholson’s costs analysis was not before him, confirming again that the judge had not read or had ignored Nicholson’s 8th witness statement.

What was not taken into consideration was the fact that Nicholson’s Legal aid Certificate continued to be in force until 05/08/02. Under Legal Aid Rules, a nominated Solicitor is not allowed to charge mark ups on a costs application and was restricted to the London Rate of £79.00 per hour, instead of the £200.00 per hour plus 100% mark up charged to SIF by the 2nd defendant.

The Met. Police Specialist Crimes Directorate (SCD6) invited SIF to make an allegation of a crime against the 2nd defendant on receiving Mr. Nicholson’s costs analysis. When SIF failed to act on that advice; Mr.Nicholson alleged that SIF had made a corrupt payment in the region of £60,000 to the 2nd Defendant: In recognition of her alleged assistance in substantially reducing a potential capital claim in the region of £2million, properly quantified using legal precedent and submitted by Mrs. Knox for mediation which was without precedent in the entire history of banking and leasehold law.

The Conduct of the Nat.West Bank

Mr.Nicholson’s claim against the National Westminster Bank (NWB) centred on the wrongful dishonour of 287 cheques of Lewis Nicholson Ltd (LNL) over a period of 18 months from 4th May 1973. With many cheques of low denomination value; together with providing a false reference; and uttering a false document with intent to deceive, namely a forged bank giro credit slip (BGC) to the value of £754.23.

This BGC was paid into LNL’s account by Mr.Nicholson but transferred to his private account by means of a forged BGC without his knowledge or authority. The bank prevented Nicholson from returning the £754.23 to the correct account, in breach of a Business Development Loan Agreement, in order to stop the bank wrongfully dishonouring cheques which then had to be paid from Nicholson’s private account and the ensuing damage to LNL’s creditworthiness.

The alleged motive for the actions of Nicholson’s bank manager was that he had recommended a local Solicitor who banked at the same branch who was claimed to specialise in building contracts and forms of lease. The Bank’s recommendation proved to have been an absolute disaster for Nicholson who suffered an Order 14 judgement obtained by a Builder in 1974, when it was eventually proved at a subsequent trial in 1980 that Nicholson owed no money to the builder for his final account.

The bank also continually caused the intentional infliction of financial harm; and attempted to invoke clause 4(i) of Nicholson’s Building Agreement with the Stevenage Development Corporation (SDC). Clause 4(i) gave the SDC powers to confiscate Nicholson’s commercial property built on SDC land without compensation if Nicholson suffered goods to be taken by a court order, or he entered into a composition with his creditors. Nicholson averted the enforcement of a Warrant of Execution when he discovered the NWB had wrongfully dishonoured payment of the disputed debt twice: There was no record on LNL’s bank statement.

Nicholson had attempted to expose corruption within the Estates Department of the SDC in 1973. Hertfordshire CID advised Nicholson that his allegations had proved to be “substantially correct”. There was no prosecution. SDC estate officers took revenge on Nicholson by refusing to grant his lease unless he immediately assigned it. He was also branded “persona non grata” by the SDC who would refuse any application by Nicholson, or whoever he was associated with, from obtaining land or property from the SDC.

Both claims were lost due to the admitted negligence of Nicholson’s then Solicitor. The loss of the lease can be quantified at 1988 as: £250,000 for the property value and £700,000 for loss of rental income excluding interest. What damages could Nicholson expect from the court on the deliberate acts of the Bank in attempting to destroy Nicholson’s business reputation which finally succeeded? Nicholson discovered that his bank manager was giving confidential information known only to the bank, to officers of the SDC’s estates department.

Nicholson’s former Solicitor served a Writ against the NWB showing no cause of action. Nicholson had to step in and draft a statement of claim in person when his Solicitor refused to comply with a Master’s Final Order to serve the statement of claim within 21 days. Nicholson later discovered that his former Solicitors were retained Solicitors of an Irish Bank within the NWB group of companies.

Nicholson’s claim against the NWB No: 1979 N 684 was lost on 26th March 1981 in mysterious circumstances. Nicholson’s new Solicitors passed incorrect information to the bank’s Solicitors without checking with Nicholson who succeeded in striking out Nicholson’s substantial claims. They refused to act on Nicholson’s instructions to restore his claim due to their complicity. They also demanded £1000 knowing that Nicholson was of nil contribution” legal aid status.

Throughout the eight month period of Nicholson’s claim, the NWB were unable to file its defence, giving sufficient grounds for Nicholson’s previous two Solicitors to apply for an Order 14 Judgement. The NWB claim can be quantified in the region of £ 1,323 400 excluding interest on the basis of the 1940 case of Davidson –v- Barclays Bank. The judge awarded damages of 90 times the wrongfully dishonoured cheque value of £2.15 8d for the Bank’s admitted negligent mistake.

Nicholson’s third claim for residuary losses was costed by the 2nd defendant at £52,466 including interest. The mediation combined capital sum of £17,860 for all heads of claim was not apportioned.

The Conduct of the Mediation

SIF’s Solicitor barred Mr.Nicholson from the afternoon settlement discussions with the consent of Mrs. Knox and the two mediators, contrary to the code of conduct for mediation. SIF’s Solicitors were founding and funding members of CEDR the mediation firm and refused the 2nd defendant’s request to transfer to ADR who were cheaper. Mr.Nicholson was suffering from serious depression; had reduced mental faculties and a viral infection, which he claims Mrs.Knox took advantage of, contrary to Solicitors Conduct Rules. Both Mrs.Knox and SIF’s Solicitors rejected the appointment of a Barrister mediator who specialised in banking and professional negligence, without the knowledge or authority of Nicholson, who as a “Party” to the mediation had sole responsibility for accepting or rejecting the appointment of a mediator.

Nicholson’s £2, million mediation claim was reduced by the 2nd defendant to a capital sum of £17,800 by means of an alleged fraudulent Tomlin Order signed by Mrs. Knox without Mr. Nicholson’s knowledge or authority. Mr.Nicholson as a “Party” to the mediation was the only person legally entitled to sign the Tomlin Order.

By a letter dated 28th September 1999 to the defendants; SIF’s Solicitor claims the Tomlin Order was signed at mediation on 25th August 1999 by Mrs. Knox in the presence of Mr.Nicholson and two mediators which they deny. This letter was not disclosed to Nicholson until December 2007.

The mediators’ refusal to confirm their presence, formed the basis of Nicholson’s police allegations of a:- Conspiracy to defraud and Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Nicholson holds references from two Solicitors describing him as “too honest”: having a remarkable memory and has considerable intelligence and application, so he should know if he witnessed Mrs.Knox sign the Tomlin Order.

A judge with an enquiring mind, should have considered that if this letter was genuine, why was it not disclosed to Nicholson at the material time? The only logical conclusion was that earlier disclosure would have alerted Nicholson that much sooner to his suspicions of a conspiracy to defraud and pervert the course of justice: Especially in view of his letter dated 7th September 1999 to the 2nd defendant; its entire 11 page content alleging dishonesty were not denied by the 2nd defendant. A pointer for the judge. Nicholson’s Barrister claimed this letter was of no evidential value.

At the trial; the 2nd defendant admitted that she had no ostensible authority from Mr. Nicholson to sign a Tomlin Order. Mr. Nicholson was led to believe that the mediation negotiations were non binding.

He did not receive a copy of a Tomlin Order until 1st September 1999; and made an immediate application to the High Court to stop the Tomlin Order from being sealed but was too late.

There is further evidence that it was not possible for the Tomlin Order to have been signed as claimed by the defendants and SIF’s Solicitor at mediation on 25/08/99. A letter dated 26/08/99 from SIF’s Solicitors to the defendants, stated that the schedule to the Tomlin Order was yet to be prepared. Without the schedule it was impossible for the Tomlin Order to be signed. As it was; only the front page of the Tomlin Order was signed
but not the schedule which sets out what the Parties allegedly agreed. This is hardly commensurate with proper legal practice.

There is also evidence in the trial bundle that the Tomlin Order was dated 31st August 1999, and on the Tomlin Order itself, when it was sealed at the High Court. Further correspondence stated that the Tomlin Order was dated 26th August 1999. Again! There was sufficient evidence before the judge to arouse his suspicions and dig deeper into the evidence before him. Despite this evidence The Hon. Mr. Justice Saunders claimed that Nicholson’s allegations against SIF’s Solicitors were “baseless”.

The capital offer Mr. Nicholson was bullied into accepting at mediation by threats of striking off and the loss of his Legal Aid was not reflected in the Tomlin Order. Instead; the fraudulent Tomlin Order confirmed that Nicholson had allegedly accepted £105,000 including interest:

Eventually, with judge Reddihough’s calculation of an interest factor of 5.932 of a capital sum in July 2007 instead of SIF’s Solicitor’s calculation of 3.592, the capital element of £105,000 reduced to £17,800.

Whether the offer included interest or excluded interest was also misrepresented in the 2nd defendant’s mediation contemporaneous notes.
There was a similar “modus operandi” used in 1996 when another former Solicitor and barrister advised the Legal Services Commission that Nicholson had refused a capital offer of £25,000 yet Nicholson was informed that the £25,000 included interest. Subsequent attempts by his then legal team to force the discharge of Nicholson’s legal aid failed. Nicholson is satisfied that SIF’s Solicitor was the prime mover.

Nicholson alleges that the same “modus operandi” was used at mediation. There was substantial evidence in the trial bundle not seen by Nicholson until December 2007 that both Solicitors were focussed on a capital settlement of £100,000 plus interest.

SIF’s Solicitor’s mediation contemporaneous notes showed that it was Nicholson’s Solicitor who suggested that the offer of £105,000 should include interest, but not reflected in her own mediation contemporaneous notes. Including interest, the capital offer was reduced within the region of £25,000, based on Nicholson’s interest calculations of 4.172 of a capital sum. £25,000 was already rejected by Nicholson’s Solicitor in April 1998. Nicholson’s skeleton argument on his £2, million claim was not mentioned at all by either Solicitor or the two mediators at mediation.

The leading mediator’s CV obtained from her website confirmed that she had negotiated a £2, million claim in one day. The details disclosed referred to Nicholson’s mediation. Any competent lay person was bound to enquire how it was possible to reduce a potential claim of £2 million to £17,800 unless fraud was involved!

The Calculations for Damages

A letter dated 28th April 1999 from SIF’s Solicitor to Mrs.Knox altered “the goalposts” to the proposed settlement proposals to negotiate between capital sums of £25,000 and £100,000 made on 30th March 1999. Now SIF were proposing that only the upper limit of £100,000 excluded interest.

Common sense dictates that SIF could not make an offer of £105,000 based on these latest proposals that included interest. However; in his written judgement on 4th June 2008 the Hon. Justice Saunders claimed that Nicholson’s interpretation was wrong. The judge did not offer any other interpretation. There was no other interpretation!

Mr. Nicholson alleges that he was cheated out of £517,860 interest at mediation, based on Judge Reddihough’s interest factor of 5.932 of a £105,000 capital sum. On 26th April 1999 the 2nd defendant confirmed to SIF’s Solicitors that all offers should exclude interest. Judge Reddihough was the judge who reinstated Mr.Nicholson’s claim on 27th July 2007 after the claim was struck out on 17th April 2007 because of his emergency admission to hospital on 16th April 2007.

In his judgement Judge Reddihough confirmed that Nicholson should have received substantially more damages than reflected in the Tomlin Order: He also expressed concern that a handwritten Tomlin Order was not signed or dated by anybody: That if Nicholson was aware of the terms of the Tomlin Order at mediation, why did he attempt to stop the Tomlin Order from being sealed on receiving an unsealed copy on 1st September? Judge Reddihough also stated that if as claimed, the two mediators and Mr.Nicholson witnessed the 2nd defendant sign the Tomlin Order why were they not being called to give evidence for the defendants?

The Defendants were aware that on or about 23rd September 2005 CEDR confirmed to Nicholson that its two mediators did not take part in the procurement of the Tomlin Order and had no idea: When the Tomlin Order was signed: Who signed the Tomlin Order: Where it was signed and when it was signed.

This was a particularly emphatic statement in contradiction of Pinsent’s 28/09/99 letter to the 2nd Defendant that the two Mediators witnessed the 2nd defendant sign the Tomlin Order at mediation on 25th August 1999.

It was not surprising that the defendants did not call the mediators to give evidence on their behalf. What was even more surprising was that Nicholson’s legal team did not call the mediators or any other witnesses to give evidence on Nicholson’s behalf.

Their evidence would have given the Hon Mr.Justice Saunders no choice other than to give judgement to Nicholson, who regarded the 28/09/99 Pinsents/Knox letter as ensuring that both Solicitors were “singing from the same hymn sheet”. There could be no stronger evidence before the court that an alleged conspiracy to defraud had occurred which could be proved.

Mr.Justice Reddihough also confirmed that if as claimed, Nicholson witnessed the 2nd Defendant sign the Tomlin Order, why was he not allowed to sign the Tomlin Order? Judge Reddihough also stated that any future judge should assess damages based on the conduct of the National Westminster Bank, detailed in Nicholson’s 19/06/98 34 page witness statement, and the opinion of Counsel John Friel dated 30th June 1980. Nicholson’s Barrister did not suggest to Judge Reddihough that he reserve Nicholson’s case unto himself.

The judge’s advice was ignored by the Hon. Justice Saunders who calculated that Mr.Nicholson would have been only entitled to damages of £15,000 if his claim went to trial, based on estimated loss of profits. Loss of profit has to be specifically pleaded to obtain damages. Nicholson did not plead loss of profit.

The entire basis of Nicholson’s claim against the NWB relied on the fact that the bank had initially wrongfully dishonoured cheques by forging Nicholson’s handwriting on a bank giro credit slip confirmed by a handwriting expert’s report but not disclosed by Nicholson’s Barrister in the trial bundle; and wrongfully dishonoured 287 of LNL’s business cheques with extreme malice in order to destroy Nicholson’s business creditworthiness.
The Hon. Mr.Justice Saunders £15,000 damages estimate was considerably less in real terms than the 1854 decision of Rolin –v- Steward, when £200 in damages was awarded for the wrongful dishonour of three cheques and a bill of exchange. This case created the legal precedent that traders can recover substantial damages for the wrongful dishonour of cheques without proving actual loss unless specifically pleaded.

Nicholson’s calculations show that £15,000 reduces to £208.00 for four dishonours (£15,000 divided by 287 X 4) for Nicholson’s general damages claim for 287 wrongfully dishonoured cheques with malice, matching the 1854 precedent: . In Nicholson’s case, the judge’s estimate of damages showed no consideration for inflation costs from 1854, or the bank’s intentional infliction of financial harm.

The Office for National Statistics provided a guide to the equivalent purchasing power of £200 in 1854 for the following years:

1980 £3966
1981 £4436
1982 £4818
1983 £5040
1984 £5290

On the basis that Nicholson was able to obtain a trial date for 1980, the approximate calculations for damages based at 1854 values for a bank’s honest mistake wrongfully dishonouring four items is £3966 X 72 = £285,552. For 1984 the calculation is:- £5290 X 72 = £380,800.
Both calculations fall within CEDR’s scale fee of £1250 for mediation of between £200,000 and £500,000 excluding interest.

The Hon.Mr.Justice Saunders at paragraph 86 of his judgement confirmed that £200 in 1854 was worth £6,900 in 1984. On the above calculations; £6,900 X 72(287divided by 4) = £496,800 which was the approximate sum of general damages Nicholson was entitled to for the wrongful dishonour of 287 cheques of LNL.

A banking expert confirmed that 202 cheques were wrongfully dishonoured: Nicholson also calculated that a further 85 cheques were wrongfully dishonoured by the amount of time these 85 cheques cleared LNL’s account. Nicholson’s calculations based on the 1940 Davidson-v- Barclays Bank Case of 90 X cheque value equates to £1,323,400. It could be safely argued that exemplary damages for the bank’s conduct displayed in Nicholson’s 34 page witness statement could equal the calculated value of £496,800 for general damages Mr.Justice Reddihough at paragraph 85 of his judgement says:-

“Furthermore, even after the bank had given
undertakings ( to Nicholson’s Solicitor)
that it would not dishonour further cheques,
it proceeded to do just that”

The maliciousness of the bank’s conduct, now confirmed by a judge; it followed that punitive damages should have been awarded by the Hon. Justice Saunders as an example to bank’s in general, that it is not the function of any bank to destroy a customer’s credibility for the benefit of others.

It was the court’s duty to decide what additional appropriate damages should be awarded to Nicholson for the bank’s disgraceful conduct in attempting to destroy Nicholson’s business reputation, which SIF’s Solicitor and the two mediators ignored at mediation with the assistance of the 2nd defendant.

Evidence of Alleged Fraud

The 2nd defendant’s mediation contemporaneous notes do not reflect that the settlement included interest. Stating: “£105,000 inclusive costs indemnity”; reflecting the Order 14 judgement with costs Nicholson obtained on 23rd August 1994. Paragraph 8 of the 2nd defendant’s witness statement of 28th April 2006 alters her notes to £105,000 inclusive, “PLUS” costs indemnity. This is alleged perjury and a criminal offence.

Nicholson alleges that he received threats from SIF’s Solicitor and his Solicitor that he faced SIF’s application to strike out and the loss of his Legal Aid if he did not accept the financial terms for settlement proposed by SIF. In particular Mr.Nicholson faced a threat from his Solicitor that she was no longer prepared to accept instructions if mediation was not concluded on 25th August 1999. This alleged threat was a serious breach of Solicitors conduct rules and at a time when Nicholson was suffering from diminished mental capacity known to the 2nd defendant.

These facts were before the judge in the trial bundle and specifically mentioned in Nicholson’s 8th witness statement. The judge should have been aware just how desperate the defendant’s financial difficulties were, in order to obtain a speedy settlement at mediation to urgently claim for costs. A layperson was bound to conclude that the judge had allegedly “closed his mind” to the evidence before him.

A further example of alleged perjury given under oath by Mrs.Knox in court, was that as the result of the admitted negligence of the defendant Solicitors, Peter Kingshill & Co,(PK) Mr.Nicholson had various costs orders awarded against him through PK’s delays. Mrs.Knox fraudulently claimed under oath that Mr.Nicholson wanted a settlement that disposed of these costs orders to be reflected in the terms of the Tomlin Order. Mrs.Knox also denied under oath that Nicholson had given repeated written instructions for her to declare these costs orders invalid because of the admitted negligence by delay of PK & Co, causing these costs orders to be awarded against Mr.Nicholson in the first place. .

Her correct course of conduct before mediation was to apply for a court order declaring these costs orders unenforceable because of PK & Co’s admitted negligence and to refuse to attend mediation until such an order was obtained, or SIF agreed to withdraw them. None of these costs orders were quantified but estimated by Mr.Nicholson to be in the region of £5,000-£10,000 in total.

The terms of the alleged fraudulent Tomlin Order unseen by Nicholson until eight days after the mediation; specified that if Mr.Nicholson accepted the offer of £105,000 including interest (instead of £105,000 capital which he accepted under duress at mediation), then the cost orders would be waived by SIF. Mr.Nicholson regarded this condition as tantamount to alleged duress if not blackmail which he would not have accepted if put to him at mediation.

The 2nd Defendant must have known that he would not have accepted these terms at mediation, explaining why the Tomlin Order was signed by her without Nicholson’s knowledge or authority. The 2nd Defendant had an overriding duty to Nicholson to obtain a court order prior to mediation declaring these unquantified costs orders invalid due to the admitted negligence of Peter Kingshill & Co.

In offsetting SIF’s various un- quantified costs orders against Nicholson without his knowledge or authority, SIF’s Solicitors and the defendants may well have been in contempt of court. SIF were unable to enforce these costs orders without the authority of the court while Nicholson was in receipt of Legal Aid. Nicholson’s Legal Aid was not discharged until three years after the date of the mediation. The terms of the Tomlin Order could therefore be declared invalid.

A judge with an enquiring mind was bound to ask why Nicholson would accept the inclusion of interest in the £105,000 mediation offer, without the interest value being properly quantified. As it was; Nicholson’s calculations of 4.172 of a capital sum was the nearest calculation to Judge
Reddihough’s interest calculations of 5.932

A judge with an enquiring mind would also ask why these various costs orders were not quantified. These un-quantified costs orders could not
begin to approach the loss of £517,860 in interest to Nicholson. It was elementary common sense that he would have only accepted the inclusion of interest in the Tomlin Order, “If” these costs orders were in excess of £517,860 and were enforceable.

One other important point that evaded the Hon.Mr.Justice Saunders! It should have been clear to him that the costs orders previously awarded by the High Court against Mr.Nicholson for delays, should have been awarded against Nicholson’s former Solicitors Peter Kingshill & Co. Because of their admitted negligence and their admission that Nicholson was not responsible for any delays.

According to Nicholson’s 8th witness statement: The defendants were allegedly desperate to secure a satisfactory settlement at mediation in order to quickly recover costs to relieve their alleged financial crisis.

This fact was confirmed by letters dated 11th and 24th May 199 from the Defendants to Nicholson confirming that Nicholson’s “ entire case” had to be over as quickly as possible ( not just the mediation).

In addition: Mrs.Knox relied on SIF’s Solicitors calculations for interest which were woefully inaccurate or allegedly calculated to cheat Nicholson out of substantial interest. With an enquiring mind, Judge Saunders could hardly have found in favour of the defendants. In addition; he should have ordered the defendant’s accounts to be delivered to court for examination.

It was the duty of Mrs.Knox, if she was acting in the best interests of Mr.Nicholson, to determine the correct value of the interest on £105,000. This was determined finally by Mr.Justice Reddihough on 27th July 2007 as 5.932 of a capital sum, in this case £517,800, instead of SIF’s calculations of 3.592 or £264,285 which would deprive Nicholson of £253,515 of interest. Had Mr. Nicholson been afforded the opportunity of oral evidence in chief, this deceit would have also been exposed.

A witness statement from the defendant’s Associate Solicitor claimed to have attended the mediation and wrote up the contemporaneous notes. Apart from a brief appearance at the morning session, Nicholson did not see him for the rest of the day. Neither is he later mentioned in SIF’s Solicitors mediation contemporaneous notes as attending the afternoon settlement discussions. The defendant’s bill of costs did not claim for any other participant from the defendants, other than the 2nd defendant. The defendant’s mediation contemporaneous notes were allegedly fraudulent.

but relied on by the Hon.Mr.Justice Saunders as accurate. With an enquiring mind, he was bound to ask why the defendant’s mediation contemporaneous notes substantially differed from the notes prepared by SIF’s Solicitors.

With an enquiring mind; Judge Saunders would have read that an initial offer of £75,000 mentioned in the alleged mediation contemporaneous notes, refers to the offer as “including interest”. The offer of £105,000 later mentioned in these notes, did not refer to the term; “including interest”. Therefore the offer of £105,000 referred to a capital sum, confirmed by SIF’s Solicitors letter to the 2nd defendant dated 28/04/99 but denied by the judge as the correct interpretation although there was no other interpretation The judge should have considered that the 2nd defendant’s mediation notes were designed to mislead the court

If there was to be an alleged conspiracy to defraud Nicholson, his attendance at the settlement discussions would hardly be welcome. Confirmation is included in SIF’s mediation contemporaneous notes that Nicholson was barred. This fact was not recorded in the 2nd defendant’s mediation contemporaneous notes.

The Aftermath of the 2008 Trial

Mr. Nicholson appeared in person before the trial judge on 31st July 2008 after his legal team advised there were no grounds for appeal. The judge refused Mr. Nicholson’s application for Leave to appeal even though Nicholson’s skeleton argument cited ninety five counts paragraph by paragraph of dishonesty and breaches of Solicitors Practice Rules in the defendant’s three witness statements. The judge now had the benefit of Mr.Nicholson’s substantial allegations to the SFO which were also ignored.

Mr.Nicholson takes the view that a conscientious judge on realising that he had made a fundamental error of judgement in accepting the evidence of a dishonest Solicitor which could be proved: Would have allowed Mr.Nicholson’s application for Leave to appeal, and refused the defendant’s application for £82,500 in interim costs, which would lead to Mr.Nicholson becoming homeless.

Findings of the Court of Appeal

Not withstanding a finding of a Court of Appeal judge on 25th March 2009 on Nicholson’s paper application for Leave to Appeal; that the Hon.Mr.Justice Saunders did not permit Nicholson to raise twenty two allegations of fraud; dishonesty and misconduct at trial: In breach of Article 6, yet claimed that Nicholson’s claim had no merits. On 14th July 2009 A Court of Appeal judge rejected Nicholson’s oral application in person for Leave to Appeal even though Nicholson went through his evidence with the judge, confirming that the Hon Justice Saunders’s findings for the defendant Solicitor were based on fraudulent documents, a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Court of Appeal Judge claimed that Nicholson’s 8th witness statement dated 9th January 2007 was Nicholson’s evidence in chief and no further written or oral evidence was required, notwithstanding the fact that the false document evidence was not obtained until 8th February 2007 but Nicholson’s former Solicitors refused to include this crucial evidence into his witness statement.

The Court of Appeal judge was unmoved by Nicholson’s explanation of the evidence of uttering false documents with intent to mislead the court, provided by the defendants themselves, and the 2nd defendant’s witness evidence of her own alleged perjury. The Judge also claimed there were no breaches of Article 6 of The European Convention of Human Rights.

Prevented from appealing to the House of Lords under Section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act, which is a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights Act (1998): A view could be taken that the Court of Appeal was judge and jury in its own cause, again a further breach of Article 6 of the ECHR.

The judge could hardly grant Nicholson’s Leave to appeal in view of the possible consequences for The Hon Mr.Justice Saunders. At the very least; there had to be the appearance of bias if not actual bias. In the alternative, the Court of Appeal Judge acted ultra viries (abuse of power) in that the “dominant purpose” of his decision was not for any lawful reasons, but to deny Nicholson his rightful application for Leave to Appeal.

Leave to appeal should have been automatically granted in view of Lord Denning’s decision in Lazarus Estates –v- Beasley (1956) 1 All ER 341 that where there was fraud but not previously pleaded, Leave to Appeal was granted on the basis that fraud vitiates court judgements and all decisions whatsoever.

An article in a very recent edition of “Private Eye” referred to the conduct of Mr. Justice Eady in the libel action “Desmond –v- Bower”, the claimant being the proprietor of the Express group of newspapers. Lord Justice Pill on 20th July 2009 in the Court of Appeal ruled that Mr. Justice Eady “was plainly wrong”. “It would be manifestly unjust to exclude this evidence”. Lord Justice Hooper concurred: “I have no doubt that the judge was wrong to exclude the evidence of the telephone call. Indeed I would go further and say that not to allow it would risk the possibility of a miscarriage of justice”.

If that was the view of three Court of Appeal Judges following Mr. Justice Eady’s refusal to allow a taped telephone conversation to be entered into the proceedings as evidence, then clearly on that basis, Nicholson has suffered multiple miscarriages of justice at the hands of Mr Justice Hodge; Mr. Justice Lloyd; The Hon. Justice Saunders. The Rt.Hon. Lady Justice Smith and Lord Justice Dyson.

Their refusal to allow Nicholson’s substantial evidence of dishonesty against the 2nd defendant to be heard; and the court’s refusal to grant Leave to appeal for that purpose; was bound to imply to a layperson that members of the judiciary support dishonest Solicitors.

“Private Eye” did not publish the Court of Appeal verdict until 20th August 2009 because of court rules on reporting, even though the verdict was dated 20th July 2009. The citation number is: EWCA Civ 857. In any event this verdict took place after Nicholson’s appearance at the Court of Appeal on 14th July 2009. If this verdict had been obtainable prior to 14th July 2009, Nicholson could have demonstrated that the Court of appeal had no grounds whatsoever to refuse his application for Leave to Appeal.

The Government’s responsibilities

According to the websites of the Ministry of Justice (M of J) and the Office of Judicial Complaints (OJC), there is a commitment to ensure the highest standards of conduct expected of members of the judiciary, however; the “get out” clause is that it is not possible to interfere with court decisions of judges on the basis that this is the remit of the Court of Appeal.

That may be so! But there are circumstances such as alleged in Nicholson’s case, where the decision of a judge is so bad that the OJC has to consider, that such a decision could not possibly have been made by any reasonably minded and conscientious judge seeking the truth; therefore the OJC fetters its discretion to take further action.

It should have been clear to the OJC that Nicholson suffered at least two serious breaches of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights Act (1998) during the course of his five day trial at the High Court: Notwithstanding the conduct of four other judges: Yet Nicholson has to shoulder the burden of a serious complaint against a judge, while still proceeding with his grounds for appeal; and the possibility that he will suffer prejudice at the hands of further judges by his public spirited stand against an alleged dishonest Solicitor.

In his dealings with the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman ( JACO) Nicholson has enquired if JACO’s reference number reveals that JACO has received 841 complaints referrals from the OJC for 2009 so far this year. If Nicholson is correct; the reporting of 841 complaints to JACO against the failure of the OJC to discipline judges is hardly encouraging that the OJC is fit for purpose: Yet the government has refused an application by the Guardian Newspaper under the Freedom of Information Act (1998) (FOIA) to obtain details of the OJC’s disciplinary actions against judges reported to the OJC for misconduct. JACO recently confirmed to Nicholson that the OJC’s papers on Nicholson’s judicial complaint have been requested.

The Way Ahead

Mr.Nicholson still awaits a reply from the Secretary of State for Justice since 9th December 2008,concerning his suggestion that court rules be changed to allow for a trial by jury in civil cases involving Solicitors as claimants or defendants.

This suggestion would eliminate any possible bias by judges towards their legal brethren, and in line with trials for libel and slander which are held before a jury. There can be no doubt that the evidence of alleged fraud and dishonesty obtained by Nicholson against the 2nd defendant, would have led to a jury finding in favour of Nicholson with substantial damages.

There is also a need for a court Practice Direction ordering Solicitors to reveal to a client, copies of all correspondence and attendance notes entered into by the Solicitor, so that a client has a complete record of developments in his case.

In view of Nicholson’s evidence before the LCS, there can also be no doubt that Nicholson’s present legal predicament is entirely due to the conduct of the Law Society’s Legal Complaints Service refusing to place Nicholson’s serious complaints against the 2nd defendant before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal where she would have undoubtedly been struck off the Solicitors Roll.

In failing to investigate Nicholson’s allegations which the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) regarded as “serious” but did not come within its remit; The SFO recommended that Nicholson place his complaints before the Law Society’s regulatory bodies. SFO officers were apparently not aware that both the LCS and OLSO were featured in Nicholson’s allegations of obstructing justice.

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) do not appear to be interested in upholding the highest standards expected of Barristers of whom no less than four in number were and are about to be reported to the BSB by Nicholson. Again the problem being a total lack of transparency and the failure of the BSB to appoint lay members only on any committee appointed to adjudicate on a Barrister’s conduct.

One example concerned a Barrister who was so incompetent that Nicholson with his Caseworker stopped the conference. Chambers Chief Clerk stated that there would be no fee note presented if Nicholson did not complain to the BSB. Despite this undertaking, Counsel submitted his fee note of £2,000 plus VAT. The Legal Services Commission refused to inform Nicholson if this Barrister was paid from Public Funds. Even though there was evidence between Nicholson and his then Solicitor on this point presented to the BSB. The bill of costs included payment of £2000 plus vat to this barrister.

The BSB accepted the Barrister’s account that no undertaking was given, which gives rise to the question just how much are barristers and Solicitors “ ripping off” clients and the publicly funded legal aid fund with little or no action being taken by the legal regulatory bodies. What is needed is a comprehensive Parliamentary Judicial Committee to be formed so that cheated clients can expose these legal frauds and the entire regulatory system brought to account.

Mr. Nicholson’s Member of Parliament has written to the Solicitor General. Hopefully the Solicitor General will set up an all parliamentary party group of MP’s to consider the repeated failure of the Law Society to rid the profession of dishonest Solicitors by appointing Lay panel members of the public having specific knowledge of the misconduct of Solicitors. This is the aim of CASIA (Case against Solicitors for Independent Adjudication). Mr.Nicholson is a Director of CASIA.

Mr.Nicholson has requested his Member of Parliament to make a formal complaint to the Secretary of State for Justice concerning the OJC’s fettering of its discretionary powers. There is not much point in the OJC attempting to maintain the highest standards of conduct expected of judges if it has no teeth to deal with the problem!

The Police Involvement

Mr.Nicholson’s Member of Parliament has also written to the Home Secretary that Nicholson suffered eleven wasted years because of the failure of SCD6 and the SFO, to carry out any meaningful investigations, if at all, especially when Nicholson himself obtained the necessary evidence from the defendant’s documents disclosed in the trial bundle.

Mr.Nicholson’s knowledge and outstanding memory, referred to by the Hon.Mr.Justice Saunders in his judgement, would have been needed by SCD6 to unravel the contents of the 4000 documents disclosed in the trial bundle.

According to the SFO’s website, its remit in relation to Nicholson’s allegations is as follows:-

(a) Is the fraud alleged in the region of £1, million?

(b) Would the fraud alleged cause widespread public concern?

(c) Is the fraud of an international dimension?

Recent Press coverage confirms that the SFO are understaffed and inadequately funded and can only deal with 60 or so complaints in a year, yet will be suffering a cost cutting exercise which will reduce the SFO’s capabilities to investigate serious fraud even further!

Richard Alderman the Director of the SFO’s response to the intervention of the Home Secretary, was to advise Nicholson’s Member of Parliament that:-

“I regret very much that we have not been able
to assist Mr.Nicholson. It is quite clear, from what
he has told us, that he feels a great sense of grievance
as a result of the way that he has been treated by the legal
profession. We very much respect Mr.Nicholson’s sense
of grievance and have spent a considerable time on the
documentation in order to see if it was appropriate for
the SFO to conduct a criminal investigation”.

Unfortunately for Nicholson the SFO regarded his allegations as outside the remit of the SFO. From Mr.Nicholson’s point of view; Richard Alderman’s answer showed that the SFO at least tried to fit Nicholson’s allegations into the SFO remit. This was more than could be said for officers of the Specialist Crime Directorate (SCD6) of the Metropolitan Police Fraud Squad, who merely maintained “lip service” to Nicholson’s allegations made through his former Member of Parliament Barrister Paul Stinchcombe in May 2000.

Although a crime number and operational code name was allocated by SCD6, there appeared to be little intent to seek out the evidence to prove Nicholson’s allegations. SCD6 officers came and went and then returned again to “mastermind? “Operation Torquay”. By 2004 yet another officer appeared on the scene and requested Nicholson’s input, which resulted in his 300 page “Torquay Memorandum” with 750 pages of exhibits.

In his dossier Nicholson aired his suspicions that in view of her alleged financial predicament, Mrs.Knox may have made an alleged fraudulent claim for costs. As later events revealed, Nicholson was “right on the button!” but SCD6 officers made no attempt to follow up this important line of inquiry. As it was! Nicholson regarded the initial Bill of costs submitted by Mrs.Knox to SIF as: “The best piece of fiction he had read in a long time!”

Sometime in 2005 Nicholson had an exchange of correspondence with SIF who confirmed that Mrs.Knox received a total of £92,200 in costs up to February 2001. This information was relayed to Andrew Paton a senior partner at SIF’s Solicitors, who on learning that Nicholson’s Legal Aid had by the mediation date, a limitation of £10,000, expressed concern that SIF had been a victim of an alleged costs fraud.
He made further enquiries and informed Nicholson on 19th October 2005 that the initial claim for costs was £166,729.38.

Nicholson informed Mrs.Kelly on 22nd October 2005 of the initial claim for costs, having previously informed Mrs.Linda Kelly, the Information and Communications Manger at SCD6, the former DC Kelly who retired and was then called back to oversee “ Operation Torquay”, that costs paid were £92,200 which she considered was “bad enough”. Nicholson also advised her that a contact had informed him SIF always pays and pays promptly without question, whatever a legal firm claims in costs, if they have stopped a loss to the fund. Mrs.Knox stopped a loss to SIF of at least £517,800. If SIF were willing to pay costs without question, it was not willing enough to fork out £166.729.38.

It became evident when Nicholson received the defendant’s costs claim on disclosure, as an exhibit in or about May 2006, that alleged substantial false accounting had occurred. His costs analysis identified that out of 90 costs claims on behalf of Ness & Co and Knox Ukiwa; 70 costs claims were ether fraudulent; overcharged or double charged. The same costs elements were charged to Ness & Co and Knox Ukiwa.

These costs were submitted on 19th November 1999 and would have been available to SCD6 at the outset if SCD6 had established lines of inquiry.
Nicholson estimates the 2nd defendant’s actual costs as somewhere between £3000 and £5,000, in line with costs charged by Bran Slater & Tyers.

Elementary common sense dictated that it was highly improbable that the second defendant could rack up costs for Ness & Co and Knox Ukiwa in excess of £106,000 for 17 months, yet SIF’s Solicitor’s costs were no more than £35,000 from 1992 to 1999.

As it was; it was not until Nicholson submitted his costs analysis to SCD6 in June 2006 that SCD6! “invited” SIF to make an allegation of a crime against Mrs.Knox.. SIF refused to co-operate. One would have thought that SIF had a duty to co-operate with SCD6, in view of the evidence of the alleged fraudulent bill of costs submitted by the 2nd defendant for payment which is a disciplinary offence reportable by SIF to the LCS.

No doubt SIF were allegedly mindful of the fact that if it had made allegations to SCD6, Mrs.Knox might allegedly turn “queen’s evidence” and allegedly confirm that SIF had allegedly paid her a £60,000 bribe to reduce SIF’s financial liability under the terms of the Order 14 judgement obtained by Nicholson on 23rd August 1994.

SCD6 had sufficient evidence on that point alone to prosecute Mrs.Knox but failed to do so. Had SCD6 recovered the costs claim by their own investigations, they would have needed Mr.Nicholson’s assistance in order to analyse the costs claim.

By now Nicholson had suspicions concerning the failure of SCD6 to carry out any meaningful investigation, or advise him at all of the progress being made: Matters came to a head when SCD6 advised him that the Operation Torquay file was closed without explanation. If Nicholson discovered additional evidence, SCD6 would not be interested to receive it.

Nicholson made application under FOIA to obtain the SCD6 file for Operation Torquay. SCD6 refused on grounds of public interest immunity. Nicholson made a complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Committee (IPCC) who decided to take no action and “passed the buck” to another Police complaints office who also decided to take no action.

It appears that SCD6 breached the “Memorandum of Understanding” between the Police and the Law Society by failing to notify the Law Society that it was allegedly investigating Mrs.Knox. SCD6 have refused to comply with Nicholson’s recent request for copies of their “Operation Torquay” file, who has informed the Information Commissioner that it is believed that no such file exists, especially when no SCD6 documentation was returned by the SFO to Nicholson Mr.Nicholson through his Member of Parliament is calling for an investigation by the Home Secretary into the conduct of SCD6 officers.

The Conduct of the Legal Profession

There is increasing public concern at the prevailing dishonesty of members of the legal profession, and the consistent failure of the Law Society to deal with the problem, especially when the Legal Complaints Service (LCS) in Nicholson’s case; applies double standards to those dishonest Solicitors reported to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and those dishonest Solicitors whose conduct will cause embarrassment to the Law Society and are therefore not reported or disciplined.

Apart from the LCS earlier refusal to refer Mrs.Knox to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: Following the withdrawal of the SFO in April 2009, Mr.Nicholson made 33 allegations of dishonesty and misconduct against the Legal Executive who refused Nicholson’s instructions to amend the pleadings to include the uttering of false documents and adjourn the 17th April 2007 trial.

The LSC confirmed that as allegations of dishonesty were made, the LCS had a mandatory duty to examine Nicholson’s complaints out of time; the LCS requested Nicholson’s bullet points of complaint but did not call for any evidence. Nicholson is now informed that the LCS has closed its file without calling for any evidence and has relied on the complained of Legal Executive’s version of events that he relied on his “professional judgement” not to accept Nicholson’s instructions.

In not accepting Nicholson’s instructions. The LCS would know that it is not possible for lawyers to exercise their professional judgement when they are aware that a fellow member of the legal profession has committed a crime. Under Rule 19.04 of the Law Society’s code of conduct. They are duty bound to report that conduct to the LCS. Nicholson has alleged to the Warwickshire Constabulary that three officers of the LCS had obstructed justice

The problem with regulatory bodies approach to complaints against Solicitors and Barristers is a total lack of transparency between these regulatory bodies and the complainant, where the complainant has no idea if a complaint is adjudicated on the evidence provided: Bearing in mind that a complained of Solicitor or Barrister is mindful of the fact that a finding of negligence or fraud could nullify indemnity insurance and are inclined to “lie through their teeth”. Face to face contact with the complainant and the regulatory body is badly needed.

As a victim of a Solicitor’s alleged fraudulent uttering of false documents with intent to deceive, which was only one count of twenty two complaints of alleged dishonest conduct which cost Nicholson in excess of £500,000. Solicitor/client attendance notes should only be lawful if seen and signed by the client. This should be a new rule incorporated into current Solicitors Practice Rules.

In Nicholson’s case; his Solicitor drafted alleged false contemporaneous notes for a Solicitor/client meeting that never took place, in order to mislead the court. The judge refused to hear Nicholson’s oral evidence on that point or any other point and relied on the dishonest Solicitor’s version of events. Nicholson’s evidence was of a criminal standard, (beyond a reasonable doubt) only discovered by Nicholson himself following his various lines of enquiries

As a Director of CASIA, in June 2007, Mr.Nicholson and other CASIA members attended a meeting with M’s Manzoor the Legal Services Ombudsman.(LSO) She asked every member present to outline their problems with Solicitors and the Legal Complaints Service. (LCS)
M’s Manzoor was so concerned to learn of Nicholson’s problems that she asked to be kept personally informed of the outcome of his complaint to the LCS, yet the LSO supported the LCS decision to take no action against Mr.Nicholson’s Solicitor. Nicholson’s letters sent to M’s Manzoor on an “addressee only” basis were not answered by M’s Manzoor.

If Nicholson’s Solicitor defendant was reported by the LCS to the SDT, This would have undoubtedly led to her being struck off the Solicitors Roll in view of similar findings by the SDT. In that case, it would have been impossible for the defendants to mount any form of defence at trial.

The fact that Nicholson alleged that the Solicitors Indemnity Fund made an alleged corrupt payment in the region of £60,000 to the defendants for their alleged assistance in substantially reducing SIF’s liability under the terms of an Order 14 judgement, may well have been a significant factor in the LCS refusal to refer Nicholson’s Solicitor to the SDT.

Nicholson’s allegations to the SFO mentioned the conduct of another former Solicitor from August 2006 until March 2007. Nicholson has evidence that his Solicitors refused to accept lawful instructions tantamount to the obstruction of justice. Nicholson also alleged that his trial Barrister and Solicitor also obstructed justice.

The Secretary of CASIA having seen Nicholson’s complaints confirmed that dishonesty was involved. Nicholson reasoned that the LCS could not come to a decision without viewing the necessary documentation in his former Solicitors possession, allegedly proving the fraud. Nicholson has now provided the LCS with a document list for confirmation that his former Solicitors provided this information to the LCS. Nicholson has forwarded full information to Lord Hunt’s Legal Services Review Board.

As a Director of CASIA, Mr.Nicholson along with other CASIA Directors, attended a meeting on 21st July 2009 with Lord Hunt, Chairman of the Legal Services Review Board. The Review Board Members received copies of Nicholson’s Press Release, along with serious complaints made by other CASIA members, on the complete failure of the LCS to deal adequately with complaints against Solicitors, due to the total lack of transparency.

The dilemma faced by the LCS concerning Nicholson’s latest allegations of dishonesty against a firm of Solicitors from August 2006 until March 2007; is that it calls into question the refusal of the LCS to report the 2nd defendant to the SDT. The LCS is adamant that Nicholson’s complaints on this matter is closed and will not be re-opened. Having confirmed that although Nicholson’s complaint against Mr.Young was “out of time”, the LCS was “bound” to examine complaints of dishonesty. In that case, the LCS had a duty to reopen Nicholson’s complaints against Mrs.Knox

One would have thought that any regulatory body was bound to re-open complaints against a Solicitor’s dishonesty, irrespective of its failure or refusal to examine evidence before it in the first instance: Especially when Nicholson’s latest complaints had earlier led to Nicholson’s allegations to the SFO that Mr.N.Young of Solicitors SA Law allegedly obstructed justice, by refusing to act on Nicholson’s lawful instructions.

Mr.Young refused Nicholson’s instructions to re-amend his particulars of claim to include evidence of the 2nd defendant uttering false documents with intent to deceive, which SA Law themselves obtained from the defendant’s Solicitors, and thereafter failed to instruct Counsel of the importance of this new evidence to Nicholson’s claim.

As mentioned previously, the LCS are claiming that Mr.Young, a legal executive, acted on his “professional judgement” not to accept Nicholson’s instructions, yet Solicitor Alan Carter of SA Law advised Nicholson in September 2006 that Nicholson had identified “serious misconduct” by the 2nd defendant.

Mr.Nicholson has now invited the Warwickshire Constabulary to commence an investigation into the conduct of three Legal Complaints Service officials alleged to have committed obstructions of justice in their refusal to lay Nicholson’s serious complaints of dishonesty to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) consistently strikes off mere 60 or so Solicitors annually, out of thousands of complaints received by the LCS. One CASIA member described the conduct of Solicitors as no better than used car salesmen. The conduct of the SDT hardly merits confidence when one Solicitor appearing before the Tribunal cost the Law Society’s Compensation Fund in excess of £1.5 million in claims, and led Bedfordshire police to raid Solicitors Complaints Bureau (SCB) offices and confiscate papers which SCB officers knew contained evidence of fraud but failed to advise the police.

This Solicitor received a 54 month prison sentence in April 1993 yet the SDT described him as “a victim of his own misfortune”. Nicholson’s 37 counts of dishonesty against the same Solicitor were disregarded by the SCB in 1980 on grounds that it could not investigate while Hertfordshire Police were involved.

This proved to be another lie! The SDT’s findings on this same Solicitor were made in November 1989 while Bedfordshire Police were still carrying out their investigations. Had the SCB acted on Nicholson’s allegations which would have undoubtedly led to a striking off, the Law Society’s Compensation Fund would not have lost £1.5 million to repay cheated clients and Nicholson would have received justice that much sooner. Nicholson’s various letters to the SDT to date, remain unanswered.

Mr. Nicholson recently failed to obtain his complaint papers from the Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO) on grounds that all papers are returned to the LCS. He therefore has no proof that his complaints to the LCS matched the papers forwarded by the LCS to the OLSO. If the LCS was not acting to the detriment of the complainant, then all papers forwarded to the OLSO should have been copied to the complainant. That way transparency is achieved and justice is seen to be done.

Any legal Regulatory Body that does not include a substantial number of lay members experienced in dealings with dishonest and negligent Solicitors, will under perform and fail in its duties to protect clients. Regulatory Bodies should be entirely independent of the Law Society and
Bar Council and should appoint Solicitors and Barristers purely in an advisory capacity.

The alleged conduct of the LCS and OLSO et al is best summed up
by a Canadian judge as follows:-

“The whole value of the legal system- the integrity of the
rule of law - is at once destroyed if it becomes possible
for officials by arbitrary decisions made, not in the
public courtrooms but in the private offices of officialdom.
Without hearing the parties, without taking evidence,
free of all obedience to settled legal principles and
subject to no appeal. Effectively to overrule the courts
and deprive a Canadian Citizen of a right he has
established by the immemorial method of a trial at law”.

Mr .Justice Wilson

Bachand v Dupuis 2 D LR @ 641:pp 654/5

Both the LCS and OLSO might well argue that Nicholson had his trial in the courtroom and the judge found in favour of the Solicitor defendant.
With 22 claims of dishonesty and breaches of Solicitors rules, it could well be argued that both the LCS and OLSO committed Ultra Viries in failing to submit Nicholson’s allegations to the SDT.

The LCS should have had sufficient experience in dealing with dishonest Solicitors and must have known that referral to the SDT would lead to a striking off the Solicitors Roll, leading no doubt to an out of court settlement, or the judge automatically finding in favour of Nicholson.

Judicial Bias

There are various explanations put forward for judicial bias, best summed up by an Australian paper given at a Conference in Beijing on 19th October 2004:-

“In Australia a prime duty of a judge is to be
impartial. It is fundamental to the Australian
judicial system that every trial must be
conducted by an independent and impartial
judge. A judge will be disqualified from
hearing a case if a fair-minded lay observer
might reasonably apprehend that the judge
might not bring an impartial mind when
deciding the issue before the court…..

……………………………………….

It is a basic requirement that justice must
both be done and to be seen to be done.
So, even the appearance of departure from
impartiality is prohibited. The reason for
this is that even if there is no bias, but there is
the appearance of bias, the integrity of the
judicial system can be undermined”.

There is no doubt that Nicholson suffered actual bias, confirmed by a Court of Appeal judge the Hon Lady Justice Smith that the lower court judge refused to permit Nicholson from raising allegations of fraud and misconduct against the 2nd defendant, yet refused Nicholson’s paper application for Leave to appeal.

As it was; the Queen’s Bench Judge’s findings of fact in favour of the defendants went against the material evidence before him. On just one point: The judge accepted that Nicholson as his own caseworker had by himself put his own case together. He ignored the revelations in Nicholson’s witness statement that the 2nd defendant had allegedly attempted to falsely claim in excess of £106,000 for her own costs which Nicholson had accurately estimated to be no more than £5000.

The judge was also bemused by Nicholson’s alleged acceptance of £105,000 including interest, instead of his skeleton argument in the region of a capital sum of £2, million. A Judge with an enquiring mind would have considered that it was not possible for Nicholson’s well thought out claim could be reduced to a capital sum of £17,700 without Nicholson’s knowledge or authority, if fraud was not involved.

Mr. Nicholson has taken his case to the European Court of Human Rights for various breaches of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights Act (1998) involving no less than five High Court and Court of Appeal judges.

He has discovered at least ten counts of breaches of Article 6, and breaches of Articles 13; 14; 17 and 34. He has also circulated the 12 Members of Parliament and the House of Lords, sitting on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, who look at Government action to deal with judgements in the UK courts where breaches of human rights have been found.

Nicholson will be making an application for a Wasted Costs Order against HMCS or his trial legal team in the region of £90,000.
He is also to lobby Parliament for changes in the law on the following grounds:-

Proposed Changes in the Law

(i) Civil claims by or against Solicitors should be heard before a jury to eliminate judicial bias

(ii) All claims should commence with a Claimant’s oral evidence in chief

(iii) All allegations of bias against a judge during a trial should be heard before an independent regulatory body. As recently proved; the reliance of the OJC on the Court of Appeal to deal with claims of judicial bias towards the defendant was unfounded.

(iv) The Office of Judicial Complaints (OJC) requires more “teeth” to deal with proved allegations of bias against judges in the conduct of a trial.

(v) Where a claimant or a defendant has suffered financial loss due to bias by a judge. Compensation should be paid by HMCS.

(vi) Paper applications for Leave to Appeal should be discontinued as serving no useful purpose.

(vii) Oral application for Leave to appeal should not be limited to 20 minutes.

(viii) Applications for Leave to Appeal should not be limited to matters of law. A judge’s reliance on erroneous or fraudulent facts or documents is equally important if not more important than matters of law.

(ix) A failure to grant Leave to appeal by the court of civil Appeals should automatically result in an application to the House of Lords. Section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act should be repealed as a failure to allow access to justice

The View of Respected Personalities

Sue Cameron the well known broadcaster; journalist and author of “The Cheating Classes” confirmed that if she had been aware of Nicholson’s legal problems while drafting her manuscript, his problems would have been included in her book. Mr.Nicholson is hoping to find a publisher willing to publish his draft manuscript entitled “A LONG ROAD TO JUSTICE?”

A senior officer of the Consumers Association (WHICH) confirmed his “Astonishment” at Nicholson’s experiences with the legal profession. Following a meeting with CASIA members, Dr.Vince Cable MP. described Nicholson’s experiences with the legal profession as “appalling”! No doubt when the full story unfolds there will be many more letters of support

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts contained in this statement are True

Signed……………………………

Victor Lewis Nicholson

CASIA DIRECTOR.

Dated: 22nd May 2009.

Last updated : 25th September 2009

Tel/Fax 01933 413558

Mob: 07941 291355

E mail: lewnic @ waitrose.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See Also: Lewis Nicholson - Northants England - BASIS FOR PROPOSED DOCUMENTARY - BBC PANORAMA: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/06/12/01/lewis-nicholson-northants-eng...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support The Love For Life Campaign, Kindom & The Cristian Family

Supporting The Love For Life Website, The Cristian Family and The Living Dream Of Kindom (Creation Of Do No Harm Communities) - The Love for Life website is produced for free without a fee (no contract or conditions attached) as a gift of love for the benefit of others. If you feel you have gained something from visiting it, feel inspired, and would like to reciprocate as an equal exchange in substance and support (value), you are most welcome to make a gift of love to keep it and the dream of Kindom going. As always, we thank you for your gifts of love.

Additional Options

Bank:
Account name:
BSB:
Account number:
SWIFT BIC Code:
Australia New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ)
Fiona Caroline Cristian
012 547
5576 81376
ANZBAU3M

PAY PAL

Go To Your Pay Pal Account To Send Gifts To action @ loveforlife.com.au
Additional Options

 

The Cristian Family November 2006

We Stand For NO SYSTEM

Kindom (Do No Harm Communities) is the dream for freedom, but it is the dream for the freedom of those around us who also live the dream of freedom, because it is in living for the freedom of others that we get our freedom. When we live for the dreams of Kindom of those around us, we live life as a gift because we live for (dedicate our lives to) their dream of freedom, truth, peace, joy, abundance, etc, just as they live for our Kindom dreams too. This is true co-creation (cooperation) with no attack on the uniqueness of each of us. When we live this way, we have no need for any man-made system - everything/everyone has already been taken care of by our love for life.

Just as we do not have to jump 10 feet across the room to grab our next breath, neither do we have to worry about food, water and shelter because it has all been taken care of as we each co-create Kindoms/Kin-Domains for everyone. Now everybody and everything of the dream of life that is Kindom/Paradise is free (has been set free once again). The issue is greed and selfishness, power and control trips, arrogance, ignorance, being fed many many lies and being traumatised. The issue is not overpopulation - there is more than enough land available for every family to have a hectare (2.5 acres Kin-Domain) to care for. The land of Australia can provide a Kin-Domain for every family across Earth, each with a food forest, clean fresh drinking water and plenty of space for building natural do no harm habitats and with plenty of land left over.

Everyone must have the freedom to take full-responsibility for their lives, for the water they drink, the food they eat and for their shelter. Currently, "The System" forces everyone to give up taking full-responsibility so that we become grown up children accustomed to sucking on the nipples of "The System" corporations for everything, having to use money to get by and to follow the rules of money because we are not co-creating freedom, peace, truth, joy and abundance for each other. Money only leads to haves and have nots and all the abuse, manipulation and distractions that we are subjected to as slaves to money.

When we give up living for other's Kindom dreams, we start creating hell ("The System") all around us because we become self-centred - now it's all about "my freedom","my money", "my land", "my belief", "my saviour", "mine", "mine","mine", "i","i", "i", "own", "own", "own", etc. To protect what we claim we own requires a man-made system with FORCE to protect those self-centred claims. This is ALL trauma based and all story-telling (brainwashing/braindirtying).

NO SYSTEM = KINDOM/DO NO HARM COMMUNITIES
NO SYSTEM = KINDOM/DO NO HARM COMMUNITIES photo Kindom_zpsa6d24e8a.jpg

Our true freedom comes when we set our thoughts of freedom into motion so that we live freedom rather than just talking and thinking about it while we still slave for "The System". Kindom will not happen while we meditate for hours in the bush or do yoga retreats or wait for Jesus or follow the processes of the OPPT (One People's Public Trust now called One People). This is not freedom because we are not living freedom because we are living the story-telling of Jesus or Zeitgeist or The Secret or Thrive or One Earth/Consciousness/People.

Living Kindom is very, very hard work as we set about repairing the damage to MAN/Earth/Nature that we are ALL responsible for but the burden becomes lighter the more of us put our life-energy into the dream of returning Earth to Paradise. Day-after-day, we all have to work our arses off until Kindom is all around us (MAN) once again. This is the price we pay to set each other free on a piece of land (Kin-Domain), so that no one is under the image-power (education/brainwashing/story-telling) of another MAN anymore and so that everyone can have their space of love to create and live their unique, do no harm dreams. This only happens once we have the Kindoms set up so that everyone is provided for.

Once we re-create the food forests, whether on land or in the suburbs, we can re-claim our freedom, breaking the strangle-hold of "The System" because we are no longer reliant on its services and benefits and no longer turning each other into slaves of "The System", cogs in the wheels of "The System" machine. If we don't put the effort in to set everyone and everything free all around us then we still live in HELL ("The System"). The key is to live for everyone else's freedom so that we can have it too.

From Bare Dirt To Abundance
A Year In The Life Of The
Love For Life Food Forest

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
8th February 2013
51 Minutes 46 Seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sJCcCvZ97A

From Bare Dirt To Abundance Part Two A
5th November 2014
http://youtu.be/TPTPn8tgcPI
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8545

From Bare Dirt To Abundance Part Two B
Coming Shortly

We live for NO SYSTEM. We do not lose anything by not having a man-made system and, in fact, we gain. We gain our freedom and we gain abundance. Let go of the fear.

The Cristian Family November 2006

A Collection Of Various Love For Life Posts
Providing The Big Picture We See

Sequential Order

We ask you to NOT believe anything we say/share and instead use scrutiny like an intense blow torch and go where the logic of truth/sense takes you. This is very, very important. Put everything you believe up to the test of scrutiny to see how it stacks up. If you are true to your heart/senses and go where the logic of truth/sense takes you will find that NO belief, etc, will stand up to the test of scrutiny. They just do not stack up because they are lies/fraud.

After you have watched and read all the material and any questions are left unanswered, send us your landline number and we will use the internet phone as a free unlimited call. We are on Sydney NSW Australia time. Best times for us to chat are between 11.00am and 6.00pm.

It is critical that you fully comprehend Image Power, "Spelling", Trauma, Reaction To Trauma, Curses, Processing Curses, Full-Responsibility/Liability, Limited Liability/Responsibility (passing-the-back), Slavery, Senses/Sense vs Non-Sense/Senses, Re-Presenting Intellectual Property such as but not limited to "Name", Storytelling/Storytellers, Duality, Black-Magic, Belief, Lies, "i", All Seeing "i" (eye), etc..... These themes and others are covered over and over and over again.

If you do not comprehend these insights and are unable to use your senses to sense your way through all the non-sense/non-sensory-images that enslave MAN under their image power (darkness = "The System" = Hell), men and women will remain deeply trapped under a terrible state of trauma. Our intention is to inspire you to remedy by showing you how to move away from reacting to trauma in all its nefarious and devious forms.

His-Story/Her-Story (History)
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
2005-2007 - Re-posted July 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8529

The Dream Of Life Part 6
Under The Spell Of Intellectual Property

Arthur Cristian - 51 Minutes 52 Seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMK7CkU1ih8

The "Name" Is The Mark Of The Beast
The Strawman Identifying
Your Slave Status In "The System"

By Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
5th February 2012 - 56 Minutes 25 Seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdOag66v7uo

IMAGE POWER
The Nefarious Tactics Used
To Disguise Truth And Distract Us
From Remedy

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
24th January 2014
This post contains many recent Facebook comments
and email replies which collectively provides a big picture
into exposing the deception behind IMAGE POWER.
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8496

The Pull Of E-Motion
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
8th February 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8499

IMAGE POWER
Superb Diamond Range Interviewing
Arthur & Fiona Cristian 4th February 2014
http://youtu.be/qFnuuw3kLog
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8501

Trauma Induced Fantasy
July 2013 Interview With
Jeanice Barcelo And Arthur & Fiona Cristian
http://youtu.be/CZVj-ddUoZw
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8500

Processing Curses
A Lie Is A Curse
Liars Process Curses

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
26th February 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8503

How The System Is Really Constructed
Bouncing Back Curses Upon Curse Makers
To Stop Harm Forevermore

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
27th February 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8504

Slave To A Name
Parts One, Two, Three, Four,
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
3rd to 6th March 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8505

Educated Slaves
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
20th March 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8506

The Only Path To Freedom
Beware The False Steps

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 2nd April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8508

Free-Dumb For All
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 5th April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8510

Revoking The Ego
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 8th April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8511

How MAN Commits Spiritual Suicide
Arthur Cristian
Love For Life - 3rd April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8509

How To Detect Intel Operatives Working
For The New World Order Agenda
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 10th April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8512

How The Psyop Program & Intel Networks
Are Messing With Your Head +
His-Story/Her-Story

Arthur & Fiona Cristian - April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8513

Godzilla Through The Looking Glass
Destroyed By Name"

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 20th April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8514

What It's Going To Take
To Co-Create Freedom Forevermore

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 22nd April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8514

Falling For Fairy Stories
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 24th April 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8514

A Disassociation From The Work
Of Kate of Gaia

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 17th May 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8517

Separating The Wheat From The Chaff
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 22nd May 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8516

Revolution Or Revolution
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 25th May 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8520

Routing Out Psyop Programs
Routs Out Intel Operatives
Exposing Max Igan's Psyop Program

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 31st May 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8524

The Psyop Program Scam
Behind Religion Belief Faith
& Associated Opinion

Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
11th June 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8525

Another Delusion
Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
11th June 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8526

A World Of Words Is A World Of Lies
Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
13th June 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8527

E-MAN
The Name Of The Beast Is MAN

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 9th May 2014
Includes Mountain MAN Arrested
Facebook Discussion About "Name"
Uploaded 25th June 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8528

E-Motion
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 13th August 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8537

Discussion With Brother Gregory
Clearly Demonstrating Christianity
Is Part Of The Problem
And Not The Solution

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
Between the 12th May 2014 and 30th August 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8542

The Psyop Program Behind Free Food
And Permaculture

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
29th October 2014
Facebook Discussion With Unconditional Love Moon
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8544

Head So Strong
Music and Vocals Arthur Cristian
Backing Vocals and Vocal Effects Arthur Cristian & Hannah Wood
Lyrics Fiona and Arthur Cristian
Written during our spare time between Aug & Oct 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG4UQCTsqwU

The Time Of Trauma That Destroys Us
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
9th November 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8547

The Most Powerful Video On Spirituality
And Happiness FOR SLAVES
Or
How To Accept Slavery And Be Happy About It

Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
6th August 2014
Facebook Discussion About The Work Of Eckhart Tolle
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8548

What Can We Do What Can We See
Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
A series of Arthur Cristian Facebook
posts and discussions
between 17th and 21st November 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8552

The Misuse Of Love By Intel Networks
To Create Doubt And Uncertainty
With The Intention To Destroy Love
And Therefore Destroy MAN
(True Freedom, Peace, Joy, Abundance And Truth
For Everyone)

By Arthur Cristian - Love For Life
26th November 2014
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8554

The Void Of E-GO That Is Spiritual Suicide
The Justification Of Laziness
That Perpetuates System Creature Comforts
Ensuring Our Fall

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
13th December 2014
Massive Update Occurred 14th Dec 2014 3.10pm Sydney Aust time
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8556

Darkness Visible
The Freemasonic World In Plain Sight

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
14th December 2014
(Major Update Occurred 15th Dec 2014 11.37pm Sydney Aust Time)
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8557

Crop Circles Are A Massive Hoax
Facebook Discussion On Simon Kawai's Wall
Involving Arthur & Fiona Cristian
31st August 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8470

OPPT & Slavery Through Intellectual Conscription By Deceit
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
27th February 2013 onwards...
Part One: http://youtu.be/Qjp_9nlrBao
Part Two: http://youtu.be/tbybeOWZ-Bc
Part Three: http://youtu.be/yOWoxH-HbVw

Water Is The Life Of MANS Consciousness (Breath)
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life - 8th February 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8350
Part One: http://youtu.be/4ze66_33wxM - 70 Minutes 5 Seconds
Part Two: http://youtu.be/43gIi-sjxJc - 81 Minutes 13 Seconds
Part Three: http://youtu.be/oooY6W63K-M - 70 Minutes 18 Seconds

What Do You Believe On Origins?
Who Said There Was A Beginning?
Who's Truth Do You Accept?
Belief Is A Strange Idea.

Discussion Lyndell, Scott and Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Between March and April 2013
Posted 29th October 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8487

So You Want The Good Bits Of "The System"
But Not The Bad Bits?

By Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life - 12th August 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8468

Turning Away From The Reflection
Of MANS Looking Glass

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
30th April 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8404

REMEDY

From Bare Dirt To Abundance
A Year In The Life Of The
Love For Life Food Forest

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
8th February 2013
51 Minutes 46 Seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sJCcCvZ97A

From Bare Dirt To Abundance Part Two A
5th November 2014
http://youtu.be/TPTPn8tgcPI
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8545

From Bare Dirt To Abundance Part Two B
Coming Shortly

Control The Land
And You Control MAN On The Land
Displace MAN From Land
And You Turn MAN Into Slaves

Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
April 2011 (Updated 14th September 2011)
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8237

The Divine Spark
Facebook Discussion With Raymond Karczewski
Arthur & Fiona Cristian & Others
2nd October 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8483

Capturing Another MANS Uniqueness
A Facebook Debate With
Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
And Raymond Karczewski
Starting 13th May 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8414

The Spell Is Broken
Taking The Land To Create Kindom

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
3rd March 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8365

The Steps Of Kindom
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life 2006/2007
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8304

To explore these themes in greater detail go here where you can find links to all our Love For Life comments, articles, debates, discussions, videos, podcasts, etc: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385

All the best
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

Website: http://loveforlife.com.au
Email : action@loveforlife.com.au
Mobile : 0011 61 418 203204 - (0418 203204)
Snail Mail: PO Box 1320 Bowral 2576 NSW Australia
Facebook Arthur Cristian : http://www.facebook.com/arthurcristian
YouTube Arthur Cristian : http://www.youtube.com/ArthurLoveForLife

Register To The Love For Life Mailing List: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/05/14/mailing-list

Facebook Group Why Aren't We Free Discussion : http://www.facebook.com/164918753537287
Facebook Group Kindom/Do No Harm Community Discussion : http://www.facebook.com/151811728195925

Links below will kick in when the professionally recorded Love For Life music is released.

SoundCloud : http://soundcloud.com/loveforlife
Nimbit Music : http://www.nimbitmusic.com/loveforlife
Twitter : https://twitter.com/loveforlifemusi
Facebook Music : http://www.facebook.com/loveforlifemusic
YouTube Love For Life Music : http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
MySpace : http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
Google + Fiona Cristian : https://plus.google.com/100490175160871610090

Peaceful Transition Through Sacrifice And Service

We feel there is an essential peaceful do no harm transition required to get all of MAN back to standing on MANS feet without reliance upon another MAN for water, food, shelter. As it stands everyone in "The System" are highly dependent and reliant on the "group mind-set" that forms "The System" of slaves providing services and benefits for the emotionally addicted slaves to "The System" (and you can put us in the same basket too). The transition is to get MAN back to relying ONLY on nature without 3rd party interlopers, intermeddlers, interceders getting in the way. The transition is a team effort with the foresight for setting all of MAN free down-the-line so that MAN is no longer dependent on slaves and masters providing services, benefits, privileges and exclusivity while being bound to contracts, rituals, procedures, conditions, rules & regulations which compromises MAN severely.

This transition is all about shifting from limited liability/responsibility to full liability/responsibility. This full responsibility is all about caring for our health, nature all around us, clean uncorrupted (pure) water and food, partner/co-creator, children, shelter, animal-friends in partnership, etc. In "The System", we are already together destroying each other - we have to come together to create peace together so that we can all have peace. We cannot live peacefully when we are islands, not taking full responsibility for the lives of those around us until EVERYONE can take full responsibility for their life, which means that EVERYONE is healed of system trauma. In "The System", we all come together to make slaves of each other - now is the moment to come together to set each other free, to live for each other's freedom, peace, joy and abundance. Once we have set each other free, we are free.

Control The Land
And You Control MAN On The Land
Displace MAN From Land
And You Turn MAN Into Slaves

Arthur & Fiona Cristian - Love For Life
April 2011 (Updated 14th September 2011)
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8237

The Spell Is Broken
Taking The Land To Create Kindom

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
3rd March 2013
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8365

"The Steps Of Kindom"
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8304

---------

Once we fix these issues, we or our children or our descendants to come, can start focusing on the even bigger picture of getting back to where our ancestors were, as breatharyan's, before they fell into non-sense images to be enslaved by them.

All the best to you and your family
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

The Cristian Family November 2006

The Cristian Family Declaration

The Cristian family and The Love for Life Campaign are apolitical, non-religious, non-violent, anti weapons, anti drugs (both pharmaceutical and recreational) and anti any ideology that denies the existence of Do No Harm Communities (Kindoms) and suppresses the uniqueness and freedom of all men, women and children.

The Cristian family and our Love For Life work is unaligned to any big business corporation, intelligence agency, government body, "system" law, "system" think tanks, "system" green or environmental movements, religion, cult, sect, society (fraternity, brotherhood, sisterhood, order, club, etc,) secret or not, hidden agenda, law or sovereignty group, occult, esoteric, New Age or Old Age.

The Cristian family supports and promotes the remedy that brings an everlasting peace, freedom, truth, joy, abundance and do no harm for all of life without causing loss of uniqueness or the need for having slaves and rulers. We are not into following the one in front or being shepherds for sheeple. Most importantly, we take full-responsibility for everything we think, feel and do.

The Cristian family are not Christians.

Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

December 2006

The Cristian Family November 2006

THE CRISTIAN FAMILY PLEDGE

Being of clear brain, heart and intention, we each declare the following to be true:

• We have no intention of ending our own lives.

• We will not tolerate suppression of truth, ideas, freedom, or our work. We stand for freedom of speech.

• We stand together to support others in the expression of truths and freedom to speak out no matter how radical those ideas may seem.

• Standing for freedom takes courage; together we shall be strong in the face of all odds.

• If it is ever claimed that we have committed suicide, encountered an unfortunate accident, died of sickness/disease, disappeared, been institutionalized, or sold out financially or in any other way to self-interested factions, we declare those claims false and fabricated.

• We testify, assert and affirm without reservation, on behalf of all those who have dedicated their lives to the ending of secrecy and the promotion of freedom of thought, ideas and expression that we shall prevail.

• We Do Not Have Multiple Personality Disorders

Arthur Cristian
Fiona Cristian
Jasmin Lily Cristian
Emma Rose Cristian
Frances Hannah Cristian
Xanthe Jane Cristian

15th December 2006 (Edited/Updated 18th September 2011)

The Cristian Family November 2006

Update Regarding The Love For Life
Home Page And Quick User Guide

We are turning the Love for Life Quick User Guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 into a blog of all the main insights of our work since March 2005, whether through articles, videos, podcasts or discussions/debates.

As we do not have the time to compile everything we have written into a book, as many have suggested we do, compiling all our most important work into one area of the website is a way of providing easy access to this work so those interested are able to fully comprehend the big picture.

Instead of having to find our different articles, videos, etc, in various parts of the website, it will all be accessible here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385.

Love For Life Videos

As amateurs and posted in the Quick User Guide below the Facebook links, we're currently creating and posting a series of videos called "The Dream Of Life" which covers the ground of all the Love For Life insights. We plan to have the videos completed by December 31st 2012. Once this is behind us, our intention is to create a 2 hour or so video covering the body of this work. All videos are embedded in the quick user guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 and uploaded in Arthur's YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ArthurLoveForLife.

Love For Life Music

We have started recording songs, with others, that express the themes of Love For Life. They are now being posted on Arthur's YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ArthurLoveForLife and are embedded in the quick user guide http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608. We have over 100 songs to record. A few rough demos have already been used as the soundtrack on the first "Dream of Life" video.

About Us - Love For Life & The Cristian Family

Also, everything we, the Cristian family, have gone through, from bank fraud and the theft of the family home to death threats and attempts on Arthur's life, is documented in the Quick User Guide too. If you, the reader, are prepared to put the effort in, you will comprehend the extent to which we have all been tricked into becoming slaves, giving up our uniqueness and our full-responsibility for life and destroying everything of life to the point where life is in danger of dying out completely. You will also comprehend the remedy to all this chaos; a remedy that requires only love for life and the determination to do what needs to be done. Though our focus is very strongly on the remedy that creates a world of freedom, truth, peace, joy, abundance and Do No Harm for all of life without loss of uniqueness or the need for slaves and rulers, we realise that it is vital to comprehend how to get there and what stops us from getting there. This is why there is so much information on the hows and whys of everything going wrong in the world today. We are not into peddling conspiracy theories, we are into routing out all forms of organised crime.

Saturday 26th November 2011

Arthur and Fiona Cristian
Love For Life

Website: http://loveforlife.com.au
Email: action@loveforlife.com.au
Mobile: 0011 61 418 203204 - (0418 203204)
Facebook Arthur Cristian: http://www.facebook.com/arthurcristian
YouTube Arthur Cristian: http://www.youtube.com/ArthurLoveForLife
SoundCloud: http://soundcloud.com/loveforlife
Nimbit Music: http://www.nimbitmusic.com/loveforlife
Twitter: https://twitter.com/loveforlifemusi
Facebook Music: http://www.facebook.com/loveforlifemusic
Facebook Why Aren't We Free Discussion: http://www.facebook.com/164918753537287
Facebook Do No Harm Community: http://www.facebook.com/151811728195925
YouTube Love For Life Music: http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/loveforlifemusic
Google + Fiona Cristian: https://plus.google.com/100490175160871610090
Register To The Love For Life Mailing List: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/05/14/mailing-list

1. For The Body Of The Love For Life Work by Arthur and Fiona Cristian

Which Unravels The Reasons For The Chaos, Mayhem and Confusion Being Experienced In The World Today, Explains The Need For "Community Immunity" and Responsibility, and Focuses On The Creation Of Kindoms - Do No Harm, Life-Sustainable Communities (As The Remedy That Heals All Mans Woes) - And How We Can Co-Create Them. For Comments, Articles And Discussions, Go Here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385 - Also Go Here To See Podcasts And Videos Posted by Arthur & Fiona Cristian: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7309 - The Information Shared Comes From Inspiration, Intuition, Heartfelt-Logic And Information Gathered From Nature And Many Amazing Men And Women Along The Way. It Is Not Found In Any Books Or Channellings, Or Talked About By "Experts". Go Here To Read A Brief Synopsis Of Why We Started Love For Life: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8182

2. For Information About The Ringing Cedars of Russia Series

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1125 and for more on Eco Homes, Villages, Organic and Permaculture Gardening and Life-Sustainability, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3641 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1985 and Mikhail Petrovich Shchetinin - Kin's School - Lycee School at Tekos: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5173

3. For How To Eat A Raw, Living Food Diet,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5068 - LIFE is information. When we distort LIFE and then eat, drink, absorb, think, feel, hear, see, touch, taste, smell and perform these distortions, the information of LIFE, your LIFE, our LIFE, our children's lives, everyone's LIFE, is distorted.

4. To Find A Menu For The Extensive Research Library (over 8,000 items posted embodying over 11,000 documents, pdf's, videos, podcasts, etc)

Which Covers Topics From Health to Chemtrails/Haarp to Brain Control to Archaeology to Astronomy Geocentricity Heliocentricity to Pandemics Bird Flu Swine Flu to Fluoride to Cancer to Free Energy to Global Warming, 9/11, Bali Bombings, Aspartame, MSG, Vaccinations, Aids/HIV, Mercury, New World Order, Satanism, Religions, Cults, Sects, Symbolism, etc, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/82

5. If You Would Like To Read About The Cristian Family NSW Supreme Court Case

(Macquarie Bank/Perpetual Limited Bank Fraud Condoned By Judges, Registrars, Barristers, Lawyers, Politicians, Public Servants, Bureaucrats, Big Business and Media Representatives - A Crime Syndicate/Terrorist Organisation) Which Prompted The Creation Of This Love For Life Website December 2006, And The Shooting And Torture Of Supporters Who Assisted Us In Reclaiming The Family Home, Joe Bryant And His Wife, Both In Their Late 70's, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5 And Read Some Of Our Email Correspondence With Lawyer Paul Kean - Macedone Christie Willis Solari Partners - Miranda Sydney May 17th-June 27th 2006: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7300

6. For The Stories Of Other Victims Of The System,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/australian_stories (If you have a story you would like us to put up, we would love to here from you:
action @ loveforlife.com.au)

7. For Documentation Of Harm Done By The Powers-That-Be And Their Representatives,

Evidence Revealing How Victims Did Not Break The Peace, Caused No Crime or Harm, There Were No Injured Parties. Documenting Incontrovertible Evidence Demonstrating How The Powers That Be (PTB) And Their Lackeys Will Break All The Laws They Are Supposed To Uphold. They Will Kidnap, Intimidate, Terrorise, Rape, Pillage, Plunder And Lie And Take Responsibility For None Of It. All Part Of Their Tactics Of Using Fear And Trauma To Keep Us In Our Place. Relatives Of Those Under Their Radar Are Also Not Safe From Attack And Intimidation. All Starting From A $25 Fine For Not Voting And A $65 Fine For Not Changing A Dog Registration. We Do Not Have Freedom And Can Only Appear To Have Freedom If We Comply. Regardless How Small The Matter The PTB Throw Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars Away To Enforce Their Will.... Go Here:
Fiona Cristian Reply To State Debt Recovery Office - Part One to Part Ten - From 17th October 2008 And Still Continuing:
http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6319 or
Fiona Cristian Reply To State Debt Recovery Office
Part One: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5742 - From 17th October 2008
Part Two: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6135 - From 18th December 2008
Part Three: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6295 - From 9th January 2009
Part Four: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6296 - From 14th January 2009
Part Five: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6375 - The Sick Puppy - From 20th February 2009
Part Six: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6390 - Police Officers, Sheriff’s Officers, Tow Truck Driver and State Debt Recovery Office Blatantly Ignore the Law To Rape, Pillage and Plunder The Private Property Of Fiona Cristian - From 11th March 2009
Part Seven: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6445 - Affidavit Of Truth - Letter To The Queen + Australia: Fascism is Corporatism - From 30th March 2009
Part Eight: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6652 - The Pirates Auction And The Ghost Of VSL386 - From 4th April 2009
Part Nine: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7073 - Arthur Cristian's Letter To Pru Goward MP - From 15th December 2009
Part Ten: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7500 - Should We Be In Fear Of Those Who Claim To Protect Us? "Roman Cult" Canon Law - Ecclesiastical Deed Poll - The Work Of Frank O'Collins - From 13th October 2010

8. If You Are Interested In Information On Freedom From Statutes, Rule-Of-Law, Free Man/Free Woman, Strawman, "Person" and Admiralty Law (The Law Of Commerce),

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/895 - For Common Law, Democracy, Constitution, Trial By Jury, Fee Simple, etc, go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/category/main/law-articles-documents

9. If You Are Interested In Banking and Money Created (Fiat/Credit/Debt/Mortgage/Loan/Overdraft etc) Out-Of-Thin-Air, How Banks Counterfeit Money,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/banks

10. For A List Of All The Latest Posts In The Love For Life Website,

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/tracker

11. For Links To Many Hundreds Of Videos, DVDs And Podcasts

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/video_dvd

12. To See The Cristian Family Pledge, Legal and other Disclaimers

go here: http://loveforlife.com.au/content/06/12/05/love-life-legal-disclaimer

13. To Read About How A Representative Of The NSW Jewish Board Of Deputies Had Threatened To Shut Down The Love For Life Website

go here: Part One: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6616 Part Two: THE STEVE JOHNSON REPORT AND VIDEO: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6665 and Part Three: Latest Update On James Von Brunn: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6673

Conscious Love Always
Arthur & Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
action @ loveforlife.com.au
www.loveforlife.com.au
0418 203204 (int: 0011 61 418 203204)
PO Box 1320 Bowral 2576 NSW Australia

Arthur Cristian

Create Your Badge

Love For Life Discussions - Why Aren't We Free? How Can We Be Free?

Promote your Page too

The Cristian Family November 2006

Love For Life Legal Disclaimer

The information contained on this world wide web site (the web site and all information herein shall be collectively referred to as "Web Site Information"), under the registered url name, loveforlife.com.au, resides on a host server environment in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15203, United States of America.

The Web Site Information has been prepared to provide general information only and is not intended to constitute or be construed as providing substantive professional advice or opinion on any facts or circumstances. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, nor does its receipt give rise to, a professional-client relationship between 'Love for Life' and the receiver.

While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the information prepared and/or reported on this site, 'Love for Life' is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the Web Site Information not being up to date. The Web Site Information may not reflect the most current developments.

The impact of the law, policy and/or procedure for any particular situation depends on a variety of factors; therefore, readers should not act upon any Web Site Information without seeking professional advice. 'Love for Life' is not responsible for any action taken in reliance on any Web Site Information herein.

'Love for Life' is not responsible for any action you or others take which relies on information in this website and/or responses thereto. 'Love for Life' disclaim all responsibility and liability for loss or damage suffered by any person relying, directly or indirectly, on the Web Site Information, including in relation to negligence or any other default.

'Love for Life' does not warrant, represent or hold out that any Web Site Information will not cause damage, or is free from any computer virus, defect(s) or error(s). 'Love for Life' is not liable to users for any loss or damage however caused resulting from the use of material found on its web site.

'Love for Life' does not necessarily endorse or approve of any Web Site Information linked to and contained on other web sites linked herein and makes no warranties or representations regarding the merchantability or fitness for purpose, accuracy and quality, of any such information.

The sending of information by you, and the receipt of it by 'Love for Life', is not intended to, and does not, create a professional-client relationship.

All Web Site Information is considered correct at the time of the web site's most recent revision.

The Cristian Family November 2006

ADDITIONAL DISCLAIMER

THE CRISTIAN FAMILY SUPPORTS
FREEDOM OF SPEECH - FREEDOM OF THOUGHT

Note: Updated Wednesday 17th June 2009 8.00pm Sydney Time.

Love For Life does not support harm doing in any shape or form. However, we are supporters of free speech so we post articles, documentaries, etc, that represent a wide cross section of ideas. See the Love For Life extensive research library where there are over 11,000 individual documents, articles, videos, podcasts and debates/discussions are posted: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/82. We clearly see the evidence of the destruction to MAN and Earth that has been caused by ALL religions over the centuries and are therefore not supporters of religions, cults, sects or any group that demands conformity of thought, speech or action, or has rules, regulations or rituals that must be followed. Religions, nationalities and cultural "identities" are formed as a result of the brainwashing we receive from childhood. They are part of the tactics the Establishment uses to keep us all divided from one another and fighting one another.

All religions promote discrimination and division, leading to hatred and even violence and murder. None of them have yet to produce a remedy to all the suffering, poverty, unhappiness and discrimination in the world. If any religion truly had the remedy to all the suffering on earth, there would no longer be any suffering. What have Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, atheism and the New Age done to end the suffering in the world?

Freedom Of Speech - Freedom Of Thought

Since December 2006, there have been many attempts to take down the Love For Life website. Any attempts have been thwarted by Love For Life supporters inundating the harm-doers with emails, etc, objecting to them taking down the website for a variety of reasons. The trouble makers usually back off when they realise that they can post all their views, arguments, beliefs, etc, in the Love For Life website without censorship or restriction imposed. They get to see that even the Queen, Pope, Prime Minister, President of America, etc, can post all their views without hindrance or sabotage and that we support freedom of speech/thought which means we support the right of all sides to express their views.

Of note, there is a vast amount of information posted in the Love For Life website which we do not agree with but we leave it all up because we refuse to be biased, opinionated or self-centered/self-serving. Of the many thousands of comments posted over the years we have only removed posts containing secret links to commercial advertisements, terrible foul language, threats of violence and death, etc, and attacks on other people's characters that avoid the subject/debate at hand. Besides links to advertisements, we have taken down less than six comments due to the above. We usually leave everything up, all warts and all, even those posts threatening to do terrible things to Fiona, our children, our dogs, our friends, family & supporters, etc.

The Love For Life website has information from all sides on many subjects, whether about Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Law, health, psychology, mind control, vaccination, aspartame, MSG, Chemtrails etc. There are over 11,000 individual articles, documentaries, podcasts, etc on the website and they are so diverse that we are sure that everyone would be able to find something they loved and something they hated, if they took the time to search. If we removed all the articles hated by everyone, there would probably be nothing left! We are not anti anyone but freedom of speech is freedom of speech and no one should condemn the work of another without taking the time to research the subject themselves. Yes, there are articles by those who have a less-than-rosy-viewpoint of Judaism, but there are also articles on the dark side of Tibetan Buddhism (and it is very dark) for those who are interested in the truth: Tibet - Buddhism - Dalai Lama: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6271 Should the authors of these articles be abused and imprisoned for daring to challenge the widely conceived reputation of Buddhism as being the religion of peace and love and that of the Dalai Lama as a saint, or should those interested be allowed to study the work and come to their own conclusions? The same applies to all the articles, documentaries, etc, about Christianity, Islam, Freemasonry, New World Order, etc.

The Love for Life website also shows how the Rule of Law, the Bar, the Government, the Monarchy, the system of commerce, the local, national and multi/trans-national private corporations, all the courses and careers on offer from our universities, all the educators, scientists, academics and experts, the aristocrats and the Establishment bloodlines have also done NOTHING to end the suffering in the world. The website maps the insanity of a world where there is no help for those in need, just as there was no help available for us when we were victims of terrible bank fraud: http://loveforlife.com.au/court_case orchestrated, condoned and protected by an international crime syndicate/terrorist organisation of judges, barristers, registrars, lawyers, politicians, banksters, big business representatives, media moguls and other lackeys who, all together, put up a wall of silence despite our trying many, many avenues. After the family home was stolen and business destroyed we were left close to poverty and destitution caring for 4 young daughters. Three years later not much has changed regardless of all our efforts. Where were all the followers of all the religions to help us? Or do we have to be members of those religions to receive help from others involved in them?

We have been accused of being anti - Jewish because we had posted an excerpt from James von Brun's book: Kill the Best Gentiles! http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6054 in which he blames Jews for the problems of the world. Obviously this is not our view because of what we have stated above. We do not hate anyone, whatever religion they follow. We are always open to talk to any religious leader or politician and meet with any judge, member of the Bar, experts, academics, educators etc to share the remedy we offer that heals all the divisions between MAN and MAN, and MAN and EARTH.

Today, a representative of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies is threatening to close the website down, because they have decided it is anti - Jewish and that we promote racism. What has the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies done to end the suffering in the world? Can they show that they are concerned with the suffering of ALL men, women and children AND ARE SEEN TO BE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT or are they only concerned with Jewish affairs? If so, they, along with all the other religions that only care for their own, are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The man who rang Arthur today was only concerned with Jewish affairs; he was not interested in our intentions or in anybody else, just as most Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Catholics, etc, are only interested in their own. While we separate our lives into groups, dividing our lives from others with rules, regulations, rituals, procedures, conditions and contracts, we will never solve our problems.

No matter what we in the Western World Civilisation of Commerce have been promised by our politicians, religious leaders, scientists, educators, philosophers, etc, for the past two hundred years, all we have seen is ever-increasing destruction of men, women and children and Earth. None of the so-called experts and leaders we have been taught to rely on are coming up with a solution and none of them are taking full-responsibility for the fact that they can't handle the problem. All religious books talk about end times full of destruction and suffering but why do we have to follow this program when there is an alternative to hatred, mayhem and death? Why are our leaders following the program of destruction and death rather than exploring the do no harm alternatives? It seems that any mainstream politician, priest or academic are only interested in supporting the RULES OF THE DIVIDE, that maintain the haves and the have nots. For 200+ years, 99% of the world population have been so trained to pass on their responsibility for their lives, others and Earth, that the 1% of the population that make up the leaders of the rest of us are making all the decisions leading to the destruction of all of us and Earth. Let's not forget the education system that brainwashes the 99% of the population that we are free and have equal rights while, in fact, we are feathering the nests of those at the top.

At the root of all our problems is self-centredness, an unwillingness nurtured by the Establishment that keeps us concerned only with our own needs rather than the needs of others around us and Earth. Instead of creating and releasing acts of love for those around us as gifts to benefit them and Earth, we take, take and take, until there is nothing left. The whole point of the Love for Life website is to show people the root of all our problems and to share the remedy. The extensive research library is there to attract browsers and to provide access to information not available through mainstream channels. If the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies can, after careful examination of our work, prove that anything we are saying is wrong, we will be happy to accept their proof. If they cannot, and they are still insistent on closing the website down, they will be showing themselves to be traitors to MAN because they are not interested in pursuing any avenue that can end the suffering in the world.

All religions, corporations and organisations that support and maintain the Western World Civilisation of Commerce are part of the problem because our civilisation is a world of haves and have nots, exclusivity, privilege, racism, violence, hatred, poverty, sickness, discrimination, abuse, starvation, homelessness, corruption, collusion, vindictiveness, social unrest, arrogance, ignorance, fear, war and chaos. While we support civilisation, we support death and destruction.

If we truly want peace and freedom for all, we have to let go of all that which keeps us divided, and come together as MAN, conscious living co-creators of creation/life. The Love For Life website offers a remedy to the problems we all face in the form of DO NO HARM COMMUNITIES (KINDOMS): http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6608 - http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3641 For more details see here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6511 and here: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3385 - We also highly recommend that everyone read the brilliant Russian books called The Ringing Cedars: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/1125 - The Love For Life homepage/front-page also provides lots of inspiring remedy based information: http://loveforlife.com.au - If you want to be kept up to date with our work please register to the Love For Life mailing list here: http://loveforlife.com.au/campaign_list We usually send two postings per month. Presently (September 2011) there are over 7000 registrations reaching over 500,000 readers across Earth. The website now (September 2011) receives up to 12 million hits per month. Since December 2006, over 100 million people have visited the Love For Life website.

Conscious Love Always
Arthur and Fiona Cristian
Love For Life
17th June 2009

The Cristian Family November 2006

Clarification Regarding Our Intentions
Behind The Use Of Donations

The Love For Life website is offered for free without a fee and without any conditions attached. If people are inspired to donate money, then we accept their gift and have provided an avenue for them to support the work we do through Fiona's Paypal or ANZ bank account http://loveforlife.com.au/node/8515. There is no obligation whatsoever to donate and all are equally welcome to our work and to our "time", whether they donate or not. Over the last 9 years, all the Love For Life work has been put out for free and it has often been donations from supporters that have enabled us to renew the domain name, etc, to keep the website going. While some complain that we have an avenue for donations, others complained when we didn't! Either use it or don't - the choice is yours.

Since Love For Life started March 2005 and website December 2006, Arthur has worked 16 hours a day, 7 days a week unpaid for much of this period, putting together the website and sharing insights to wake people up to what has been done to them, whether through the 11,500+ individual articles, videos, podcasts, debates, discussions, pdf's, research documents, etc, found amongst the 8,500+ posts, as well as helping many, many men and women over the phone, and through email, website correspondence, Facebook and YouTube, and creating the Love For Life food forest vege garden and Love For Life music recording studio. This is our life is a gift commitment to serve MAN/Nature/Earth but we are still severely compromised by "The System" and still have to give to Caesar what is claimed to belong to Caesar, which is where the donations help us.

Fiona & Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
21st July 2014